DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Apr. 27th, 2026. A summary of this action:
Claims 23-26, 28, 30, 37-41, 43-51 have been presented for examination.
Claim 23-26, 28, 30, 37-41, 43-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement Claims 23-26, 28, 30, 37-41, 43-51 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.
Claim 23 and dependents thereof not rejected under § 102/103, in view of the amendments. The closest combination of prior art is the one previously of record for dependent claim 29 (Final Act. 69-72), but this does not fairly teach what is now recited in the present independent claim, including the feature of “wherein each integer facet identifier is mapped onto a spiral of unit squares about an origin, wherein each triangle in a respective unit square is discrete and separated from a boundary of the respective unit square, and wherein each triangle in the respective unit square does not touch other triangles in the respective unit square;” as recited in ordered combination.
The next closest references are listed in the conclusion section below, but while they do teach mapping facets to unit squares, they do not do so in the manner claimed, when read in view of instant fig. 12-13, in particular “wherein each triangle in a respective unit square is discrete and separated from a boundary of the respective unit square, and wherein each triangle in the respective unit square does not touch other triangles in the respective unit square” as recited in the claims.
With respect to claim 44, no combination of art of record fairly teaches: identifying a facet of the mesh data using the integer identifier and determining a location on the identified facet using the associated u, v parameters, and the modelling operation is applied to the identified facet at the determined location” as taken in combination with the other claimed features. The closest is the previously relied upon combination however this does not fairly teach that the modeling operation is applied to the identified face [that was identified “using the integer identifier”] at the determined location. Rather, see Liepa, as previously cited including ¶ 60 which conveys that the “user” does a modification to destination surface or input detail model, and see Co as was previously taken in combination for the integer identifier, but it does not specify it is “applied to the identified facet [that was identified “using the integer identifier”] at the determined location”
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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Rejection maintained and updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, see the July 2023 appeal brief remarks which asserted similar portions of the specification and similar allegations (e.g. the floating point in ¶ 82 was alleged in the brief at 13 in a block quotation of that paragrah). See the PTAB affirmation of the § 101 (Appeal 2024-000206), including PTAB’s discussion of the alleged improvement being in the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, see MPEP § 2106.05(f) for Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) – see rejection below for clarification this.
Examiner maintains the same position that the Examiner maintained in said appeal brief on this alleged improvement, for “as correctly found by the Examiner, "the judicial
exception alone cannot provide the improvement” (Appeal 2024-000206 at 12), and the Examiner is bound to PTAB’s prior decision on this particular issue, due to res judicata/issue preclusion.
Examiner’s only other further clarification on this point is Intellectual Ventures, as was pointed to in the office action, for claiming the desired result of the disclosed improvement without claiming how the improvement alleged is to be achieved (see prior Examiner’s answer on the how) is not sufficient to be an improvement to technology, but, as stated in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.") – see the prior appeal which affirmed that the improvement was in the judicial exception alone.
Furthermore, with alleging an improved data structure, the claims do no reflect an improved data structure, i.e. a particular computerized implementation of how the data itself is to be organized for usage by the computer, but rather “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” (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I)).
To clarify on this point, as was previously discussed in the prior Examiner’s answer, the fundamental problem lies in the math concept (Appeal 2024-000206, at 6, Examiner’s point summarized by PTAB), as the claim and disclosed invention here are providing a mathematical solution to said math problem, not a technological one (Appeal 2024-000206 at 12).
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn in view of the amendments, when the claims are given their BRI in view of MPEP § 2143.03(II): “When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter).”
Remarks moot as the rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments for the reasons stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23-26, 28, 30, 37-41, 43-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
See MPEP 2163(II)(A): "For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.""
Also, see MPEP 2163(I) for Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 23 recites: wherein the modified representation is used by the hybrid boundary representation model to identify the corresponding triangles and defined points on the triangles in the mesh data representation using same mechanisms as CAD applications for classic surface representations…wherein the manufacturing instructions are generated based on the defined points on the mesh representation as identified in the hybrid boundary representation model.
The above particular combination of features is not sufficiently described as being in this combination in the specification.
First, see ¶¶ 5, 22-23 incl.: “The step of deriving a modified parameterisation may comprise identifying first, second and third vertices of each facet, identifying first and second axes of each facet and defining a unique point within the facet as the sum of the origin, a constant multiple of the first axis and a constant multiple of the second axis, where the constants are greater than or equal to zero and the sum of the constants is less than or equal to one.”, 25 incl.: “communicating the integer facet identifier and the unique point together to the boundary representation model to identify the point on the mesh”, 81, 88 incl.: “The modification determines a unique point from the pair of u, v coordinates and uses the integer identifier with its unique point as the two parameters for communication with the boundary representation model 62” – while this discusses the existence of the integer identifier for each triangle in the mesh, and ¶¶ 83-84 discusses the using of a barycentric coordinate system to define a parameterization for each facet and using said parameterization in combination with the facet identifier “to give a u, v parameterization”, this does not convey that the identification of the triangles and defined points in the mesh data is “using the same mechanisms as CAD applications for classic surface representation” as claimed. Instead, see ¶¶ 81-82: “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…However, the method does enable components of the CAD application to communicate points on meshes using the same mechanism as the CAD applications uses for classic surfaces, so that it is possible to have a hybrid boundary representation model which incorporates mesh data without expensive and computing intensive conversion of the data format.”
Furthermore, wherein the manufacturing instructions are generated based on the defined points on the mesh representation as identified in the hybrid boundary representation model is similarly not supported in this particular combination by the instant disclosure (note in particular the antecedent back to the defined points). See ¶¶ 16-17, 65, 68, as well as citations above.
Examiner notes remarks cite to ¶¶ 49, 82, but these do not provide sufficient support for this particular claimed combination of features.
Claim 44 recites, in part:
…wherein the applying of the modelling operation to modify the at least one first part comprises identifying a facet of the mesh data using the integer identifier and determining a location on the identified facet using the associated u, v parameters, and the modelling operation is applied to the identified facet at the determined location such that the modelling operation is performed directly on the mesh data without converting the mesh data into the second format
See ¶¶ 15, 62-63, and 88. See original claim 24. Also, see above cited paragraphs.
First issue is that the specification does not sufficiently describe this particular act: “identifying a facet of the mesh data using the integer identifier and determining a location on the identified facet using the associated u, v parameters,”, but rather see ¶¶ 83-84 for how the identifier is used, then see ¶ 88: “As this amounts to three pieces of data rather than the two which are used in the boundary representation model, a modified parameterisation must be generated 61. The modification determines a unique point from the pair of u, v coordinates [¶¶ 83-84] and uses the integer identifier with its unique point as the two parameters for communication with the boundary representation model 62.”
Rather, the specification conveys it is for an act of “communicating”/”communication” from the mesh to the B-rep model.
Second issue is that the modeling operation is not applied to the identified facet at the determined location as claimed, rather see above citations, and see ¶¶ 61- 63 incl.: “An offset is applied to generate inner walls 12 as shown in Fig.6d and structural details, such as ribs 13 and bosses 14, are added as shown in Fig.6e.The distinction of the present method can be seen more clearly in Fig.7, in that offsetting, or shelling, or thickening operation and detailing is applied directly to the faceted model obtained from scanning… The user interface is able to carry out modelling operations on the different surface types, whether mesh, or cylinder or cone”, ¶¶ 7-8, ¶15: “The modelling operation may be applied to an object comprising both mesh data and a classic geometric representation.”.
Further, see fig. 11, # 57: “Apply the modification to the part requiring modification” at # 57, 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.”
Examiner notes remarks cite to ¶¶ 7, 14, 49 for support, but these do not provide sufficient support for this particular claimed combination of features.
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 23-26, 28, 30, 37-41, 43-51 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.
As was discussed in the interview on July 8th, 2026, should the claims be amended to positively require an act of manufacturing and expressly reflect the subject matter of ¶ 68 (akin to the claims in Ex parte Desjardin) then the claims would recite a practical application akin to Ex parte Desjardin. Agreement was not reached in the interview, but this suggested direction of amendment is made express on the record to ensure clarity, as Examiner suggested amendments being adopted are within the cursory review of the after final process for consideration.
Step 1
The claims are directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
For claim interpretation, see the BRI of “parameterization” as discussed in Appeal 2024-000206 at page 7 ¶ 2 and page 9, ¶ 1.
Further, note ¶ 83 discusses the use of a “barycentric coordinate system”. To more clearly understand the plain meaning of this, see Wolfram MathWorld, “Barycentric Coordinates”, Jan. 23rd 2026, URL: mathworld(dot)wolfram(dot)com/BarycentricCoordinates(dot)html: “Barycentric coordinates are triples of numbers (t_1,t_2,t_3) corresponding to masses placed at the vertices of a reference triangle DeltaA_1A_2A_3. These masses then determine a point P, which is the geometric centroid of the three masses and is identified with coordinates (t_1,t_2,t_3). The vertices of the triangle are given by (1,0,0), (0,1,0), and (0,0,1). Barycentric coordinates were discovered by Möbius in 1827 (Coxeter 1969, p. 217; Fauvel et al. 1993)...”
In other words, the “parameterization” is, in simpler terms, a coordinate transformation from a barycentric coordinate system (¶ 83, the x1, x2, x3) to a “u, v” coordinate system (¶¶ 83-84), in particular note the relation of u/v to x1, x2, and x3.
Coordinate transformations from 3D to 2D coordinate systems have long been a mental process, e.g. cartographers prior to the invention of a computer would routinely project the 3D spherical coordinate system of the planet Earth to 2D maps with projections/coordinate transformations such as the well-known Mercator projection, a commonly used map projection.
To further clarify on this, ¶ 81 of the disclosure: “This disclosure provides a mapping between the natural parameterization of the mesh and a u, v parameterization, of the type used in boundary representation models” – to clarify on what POSITA would have understood for this (MPEP § 2111.01(I and III)), see:
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.
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)
To further clarify, 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”
In other words, as the Examiner had previously stated, and was stated in Appeal 2024-000206: “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."… 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."” – i.e. B-rep mathematical representations, by their mathematical definition, have a u, v parameterization for the math equation definition them, consistent with ¶ 81 statement: “a u, v parameterization, of the type used in boundary representation models”, and what is lacking is a math concept to get the mesh mathematical representation from a 3D coordinate system into this 2D coordinate system, to which is the math concept of mesh parameterization is twice applied, once to a natural parameterization, then to a modified parameterization, so as to allegedly solve the mathematical problem of getting these two mathematical representations into the same coordinate system, and the problem herein disclosed (as discussed in the appeal) is a mathematical problem, not a technological one.
Such a purely mathematical concept is not eligible subject matter without additional elements that meaningfully integrate the math concept itself into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)) or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MEPP § 2106.05), no matter how narrow the abstract idea is. MPEP § 2106.04(I): “The Supreme Court’s concern that drives this "exclusionary principle" is pre-emption. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible). This is because such a patent would "in practical effect [] be a patent on the [abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon] itself." Benson, 409 U.S. at 71- 72, 175 USPQ at 676. The concern over preemption was expressed as early as 1852. See Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 175 (1852) ("A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.").”
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 mathematical concept recited in claim 23 is:
A method of defining a point on a mesh representation of a part of a product for additive manufacturing …, the method comprising: - a math concept with an intended use. See Appeal 2024-000206, pages 7-8: “After carefully considering Appellant's arguments, we agree with the Examiner that the preamble and limitations the Examiner identifies recite mathematical concepts… We consider the preamble and limitations identified by the Examiner in tum. First, the portion of the preamble identified by the Examiner as reciting a mathematical concept recites, "A method of defining a point on a mesh representation." Appellant does not argue that the preamble is limiting, and we determine that it is not, so it cannot impart patent eligibility to the claim. See Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Intended use in a preamble is not sufficient to render patent eligible a claim directed to an abstract idea.).” and page 11: “We do not address the preamble further because, as we explain above, there is no evidence in this record supporting that the preamble is limiting.”
obtaining, by the CAD system, a natural representation of each triangle of the mesh data representation, the natural representation comprising an integer facet identifier of each facet and associated facet parameters, the facet parameters comprising a pair of u, v parameters;… obtaining, by the data processing system, a modified representation for each triangle of the mesh data representation of the part comprising a combination of the integer facet identifier and the facet parameters, - math calculations in textual form. See Appeal 2024-000206 pages 6-10 to clarify on the BRI, include seeing the citations to the instant disclosure. In this case, the term “obtaining” is merely being used as a textual placeholder for calculating. E.g. ¶¶ 81-84, e.g. akin to the “extracting” and “deriving” (¶¶ 5, 22, 28). See fig. 14 as well, # 60-61. The only supporting words under § 112(a) for written description support for obtaining are terms like “deriving”, “extracting”, and the like previously considered in the prior Appeal, thus showing the interchangeably of these terms for when used in these particular steps.
To clarify, see the above noted definition of the Barycentric coordinate system, the it was first discovered in 1827, well before computers, and see ¶ 83 – for a small number of triangles, a person is readily able to mentally evaluate, such as with a calculator or pen and paper, the equations in ¶ 83 to obtain such a representation, such as by drawing out the 2D result using pencil and graphing paper, or in a tabular form.
wherein each integer facet identifier is mapped onto a spiral of unit squares about an origin, wherein each triangle in a respective unit square is discrete and separated from a boundary of the respective unit square, and wherein each triangle in the respective unit square does not touch other triangles in the respective unit square; - math relationships/equations in the mathematical field of geometry.
E.g. see fig. 12-13, this is merely an act of mapping to form the math relationships between triangles and unit squares in geometry. ¶ 86 of the instant disclose.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 44 is:
A method of defining a point on a mesh representation of a part of a multipart product for additive manufacturing - rejected under a similar rationale as above
and wherein the deriving of the first data comprises obtaining a natural representation of each facet of the mesh data comprising an integer identifier of each facet and associated facet parameters comprising a pair of u, v parameters; - rejected under a similar rationale as above
This claims merely nests the math calculations into limitations that require the performance of the calculation itself to perform additional limitations, akin to “calculate X to obtain X data” but worded as “obtain X by calculating X”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
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.
The mental process recited in claim 23 is:
obtaining, by the CAD system, a natural representation of each triangle of the mesh data representation, the natural representation comprising an integer facet identifier of each facet and associated facet parameters, the facet parameters comprising a pair of u, v parameters;… obtaining, by the CAD system, a modified representation for each triangle of the mesh data representation of the part comprising a combination of the integer facet identifier and the facet parameters – a mental process, when applied to a small set of data, when read in view of ¶ 83, wherein this is merely doing a coordinate transformation of triangles into a barycentric coordinate system, which is a math concept that was performed prior to the invention of the computer, thus a mental process as well. See Example 45, claim 1, discussion of the use of the Arrhenius equation in the 1800s in the prong one analysis, and see the above evidence showing a similar historical fact.
wherein each integer facet identifier is mapped onto a spiral of unit squares about an origin, wherein each triangle in a respective unit square is discrete and separated from a boundary of the respective unit square, and wherein each triangle in the respective unit square does not touch other triangles in the respective unit square; - a mental process of drawing, such as with pen and paper, in view of fig. 12-13 and its accompanying description, wherein a person simply observes a collection of triangle integer identifiers (e.g. on paper as a table, as it is just the “integer facet identifier” that is being mapped per the claim), and then proceeds to draw out a map, or mentally visualize in their own mind, to arrive at a joint drawing akin to fig. 12, with fig. 13 for the interior of each unit square. ¶¶ 86-87 of the instant disclosure go into no particular detail about what this is to do in the technology of CAD, but rather provide a bare conclusory assertation of “The spiral and structural arrangement of the integer facet identifiers shown in Fig. 12 is an efficient way of operating the method” without specifying how such an improvement would be provided.
… identify the corresponding triangles and defined points on the triangles in the mesh data representation… - a mental process, e.g. a person mentally observing a collection of triangles and identifying some of them, along with there vertices, such as by observing fig. 8, or a simpler mesh.
The mental process recited in claim 44 is:
and wherein the deriving of the first data comprises obtaining a natural representation of each facet of the mesh data comprising an integer identifier of each facet and associated facet parameters comprising a pair of u, v parameters; - - rejected under a similar rationale as above
providing, by the CAD system, a representation of the modified multipart product – as this is 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, but rather merely expresses the data formats it is to be done with, and a desired result.
To further clarify on this, this is akin to the dynamic document discussed in 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")” – see the opinion of Intellectual Ventures as discussed below to clarify on this.
wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in the hybrid boundary representation model, wherein the hybrid boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data, – a mental process, given the generality recited, but for the mere instructions to do this on a computer and in a computer environment. 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.
To add, this abstract idea recited herein is akin to the dynamic document (this would be the provided representation in the instant claims) and the underlying XML documents (this would be the obtained mesh data and classic geometric representation in the instant claims) of Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 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.
In the presently claimed invention, there is one distinction from IV – it does not provide a technological solution to incompatibles between the data structures, but rather a purely mathematical solution to the math problem, because this not a technological problem at all, but rather a mathematical problem (as discussed in detail above) rooted in the mathematical nature of the data itself, not in the data structure of how the data is implemented in a technological manner on the computer. MPEP § 2106.05(a): “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”
Should further clarification be sought, and given the instant disclosure describes avoiding a conversion of a data format into another format (¶¶ 58, 61, 63, 65, 66, etc.), in view of MPEP § 2106.07(I): “When evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter.” See, as was cited to and quoted in part (pages 4-5, the block quote) in Ex parte Desjardins Appeal 2024-000567, so see the opinion of AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc'ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 2024 U.S.P.Q.2d 632 (Fed. Cir. 2024): “…In other words, the asserted claims are directed to converting data and using computers to collect, manipulate, and display the data. We reached a similar conclusion in Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Hawk considered patent claims involving "viewing multiple simultaneously displayed and stored video images on a remote viewing device of a video surveillance system." Id. at 1352 . The patent holder emphasized that the claims required converting video [*1379] data using certain parameters in such a manner that the data could be manipulated and displayed to conserve bandwidth and preserve the data quality. Id. at 1357. But "converting information from one format to another . . . is an abstract idea." Id…”
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.”
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”:
The recitations of “a computer aided design (CAD) system” in the independent claims are considered as mere instructions to use a computer, and generic computer components, as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Fig. 1 and accompanying description in ¶¶ 48-49 further demonstrates the generic nature of this data processing system, and ¶ 51: “For example the data processing system 21 in this example may correspond to a computer, workstation, and/or a server. However, it should be appreciated that alternative embodiments of a data processing system may be configured with corresponding or alternative components such as in the form of a mobile phone, tablet, controller board or any other system that is operative to process data and carry out functionality and features described herein associated with the operation of a data processing system, computer, processor, and/or a controller discussed herein.” See Appeal ‘206, page 14: “Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claim 23 and claims 24-30 and 33-43, which Appellant does not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).”
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
Claim 23 … communicating the point to a hybrid boundary representation model of the part of the product, the method comprising:…obtaining, by a CAD system, a mesh data representation relating to a part of the product comprising scanning, with a scanner, a physical sample of the part, wherein the mesh data representation comprises a plurality of triangles each representing a facet;… communicating, by the CAD system, the modified representation for each triangle of the mesh data representation to the hybrid boundary representation model; - mere data gathering and data transmission. See Appeal ‘206, pages 12-14: “As for the "obtaining," "communicating," and "storing" limitations, we agree with the Examiner that they recite insignificant extra-solution activity, rather than technological improvements… We agree with the Examiner that each of the aforementioned additional limitations recites insignificant extra-solution activity. One hallmark of insignificant extra-solution activity is "necessary data gathering and outputting." MPEP § 2106.05(g) (emphasis omitted)…. As such, we agree with the Examiner that all of the additional limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activity…” – see example 45, claim 3, prong 2 and step 2B for its analysis, note at prong 2 its citation to MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III): “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) ("[N]othing in claim 3 requires an infringer to use the Internet to obtain that data. The Internet is merely described as the source of the data. We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’" 654 F.3d at 1375, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citation omitted)). See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively.”
Claim 44: deriving, by a computer aided design (CAD) system, a first data relating to one or more first parts of the multi part product in a first format, wherein the first format comprises mesh data …deriving, by the CAD system, a second data relating to one or more second parts of the multipart product in a second format, wherein the second format comprises a classic geometric representation; … receiving, by the CAD system, instructions of a first selection of at least one first part of the one or more first parts of the multipart product comprising mesh data; receiving, by the CAD system, instructions of a second selection of at least one second part of the one or more second parts of the multipart product comprising classic geometric representation data; - mere data gathering
The limitation of (using claim 23 as representative) generating and transmitting, by the CAD system, manufacturing instructions for the additive manufacturing of the product using the hybrid boundary representation model wherein the manufacturing instructions are generated based on the defined points on the mesh representation as identified in the hybrid boundary representation model.is considered as a token post solution activity as well as mere instructions to “apply it” given the lack of restriction of how these instructions are to be generated (but rather only what its input information is) or how it is to be transmitted, and this limitation does not even require the act of manufacturing to be performed. See suggested direction of amendment discussed above
The limitation of, in claim 23, wherein the modified representation is used by the hybrid boundary representation model to identify the corresponding triangles and defined points on the triangles in the mesh data representation using same mechanisms as CAD applications for classic surface representations; - is considered as the mental process as discussed above, with mere instructions to “apply it” by expressing a desired result (the “using same mechanisms…”) when read in view of ¶¶ 81-83, i.e. this is merely applying the result of the abstract idea itself wherein the sole alleged improvement per ¶¶ 81-83 is furnished by the abstract idea to “enable” it. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").” – see discussion of Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as was cited in MPEP § 2106.05(f) above and below to clarify.
To clarify, see ¶¶ 81-83, i.e. ones the triangles are identified in the u, v parametrization (a u, v coordinate system mapping of the triangles), this is merely stating the desired result is that when used in the context of a CAD application that it may “communicate points on meshes using the same mechanism as the CAD applications uses for classic surfaces”
The limitations of applying, by the CAD system, a modelling operation to modify both (1)the selected at least one first part and (2) the selected at least one second part to form a modified multipart product having both the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data, wherein the selected at least one first part and the selected at least one second part are modelled in different formats without a change to a format in which each respective part was originally derived, thereby avoiding errors caused by format conversion from the first format to the second format or from the second format to the first format during modelling, wherein the applying of the modelling operation to modify the at least one first part comprises… the modelling operation is applied to the identified facet at the determined location such that the modelling operation is performed directly on the mesh data without converting the mesh data into the second format , and wherein the applying of the modelling operation to modify the at least one second partis performed without converting the classic geometric representation data into the first format;…. comprising the selected at least one first part in the first format and the selected of the at least one second part in the second format, wherein the mesh data of the first format is a collection of facets, wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in the hybrid boundary representation model, … wherein offsetting, shelling, or thickening operations and detailing is applied directly to the mesh data; and
These are akin to the dynamic document of IV, and the subsequent use of the dynamic document to propagate modifications back to the underlying XML documents, with a desired result, wherein the alleged improvement is furnished solely by the abstract idea itself (as discussed above, see MPEP 2106(II)(A)(2) for Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”) - see 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
To clarify on this, while the claim is particular about what the desired result is (Examiner noting that the desired result is akin to the one alleged in IV) when applying the modification via a modeling operation, it does not recite how, in an non-abstract manner, the computer was to perform the modifications, as “Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").” per MPEP § 2106(II)(A)(2)
In addition, should it be found that the recitations of wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in the hybrid boundary representation model, wherein the hybrid boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data 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.
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).
MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) “…Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception…Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., 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"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B” and MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
To further clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1): “Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Yet, the Court has explained that ‘‘[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’’ and has cautioned ‘‘to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law” See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon").”
As a point of clarity, 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"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) as well as MPEP § 2106.04(I): “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
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”:
The recitations of “a computer aided design (CAD) system” in the independent claims are considered as mere instructions to use a computer, and generic computer components, as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Fig. 1 and accompanying description in ¶¶ 48-49 further demonstrates the generic nature of this data processing system, and ¶ 51: “For example the data processing system 21 in this example may correspond to a computer, workstation, and/or a server. However, it should be appreciated that alternative embodiments of a data processing system may be configured with corresponding or alternative components such as in the form of a mobile phone, tablet, controller board or any other system that is operative to process data and carry out functionality and features described herein associated with the operation of a data processing system, computer, processor, and/or a controller discussed herein.” See Appeal ‘206, page 14: “Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's § 101 rejection of claim 23 and claims 24-30 and 33-43, which Appellant does not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).”
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
Claim 23 … communicating the point to a hybrid boundary representation model of the part of the product, the method comprising:…obtaining, by a CAD system, a mesh data representation relating to a part of the product comprising scanning, with a scanner, a physical sample of the part, wherein the mesh data representation comprises a plurality of triangles each representing a facet;… communicating, by the CAD system, the modified representation for each triangle of the mesh data representation to the hybrid boundary representation model; - mere data gathering and data transmission. See Appeal ‘206, pages 12-14: “As for the "obtaining," "communicating," and "storing" limitations, we agree with the Examiner that they recite insignificant extra-solution activity, rather than technological improvements… We agree with the Examiner that each of the aforementioned additional limitations recites insignificant extra-solution activity. One hallmark of insignificant extra-solution activity is "necessary data gathering and outputting." MPEP § 2106.05(g) (emphasis omitted)…. As such, we agree with the Examiner that all of the additional limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activity…” – see example 45, claim 3, prong 2 and step 2B for its analysis, note at prong 2 its citation to MPEP § 2106.05(b)(III): “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) ("[N]othing in claim 3 requires an infringer to use the Internet to obtain that data. The Internet is merely described as the source of the data. We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’" 654 F.3d at 1375, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citation omitted)). See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively.”
Claim 44: deriving, by a computer aided design (CAD) system, a first data relating to one or more first parts of the multi part product in a first format, wherein the first format comprises mesh data …deriving, by the CAD system, a second data relating to one or more second parts of the multipart product in a second format, wherein the second format comprises a classic geometric representation; … receiving, by the CAD system, instructions of a first selection of at least one first part of the one or more first parts of the multipart product comprising mesh data; receiving, by the CAD system, instructions of a second selection of at least one second part of the one or more second parts of the multipart product comprising classic geometric representation data; - mere data gathering
The limitation of (using claim 23 as representative) generating and transmitting, by the CAD system, manufacturing instructions for the additive manufacturing of the product using the hybrid boundary representation model wherein the manufacturing instructions are generated based on the defined points on the mesh representation as identified in the hybrid boundary representation model.is considered as a token post solution activity as well as mere instructions to “apply it” given the lack of restriction of how these instructions are to be generated (but rather only what its input information is) or how it is to be transmitted, and this limitation does not even require the act of manufacturing to be performed. See suggested direction of amendment discussed above
The limitation of, in claim 23, wherein the modified representation is used by the hybrid boundary representation model to identify the corresponding triangles and defined points on the triangles in the mesh data representation using same mechanisms as CAD applications for classic surface representations; - is considered as the mental process as discussed above, with mere instructions to “apply it” by expressing a desired result (the “using same mechanisms…”) when read in view of ¶¶ 81-83, i.e. this is merely applying the result of the abstract idea itself wherein the sole alleged improvement per ¶¶ 81-83 is furnished by the abstract idea to “enable” it. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.").” – see discussion of Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as was cited in MPEP § 2106.05(f) above and below to clarify.
To clarify, see ¶¶ 81-83, i.e. ones the triangles are identified in the u, v parametrization (a u, v coordinate system mapping of the triangles), this is merely stating the desired result is that when used in the context of a CAD application that it may “communicate points on meshes using the same mechanism as the CAD applications uses for classic surfaces”
The limitations of applying, by the CAD system, a modelling operation to modify both (1)the selected at least one first part and (2) the selected at least one second part to form a modified multipart product having both the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data, wherein the selected at least one first part and the selected at least one second part are modelled in different formats without a change to a format in which each respective part was originally derived, thereby avoiding errors caused by format conversion from the first format to the second format or from the second format to the first format during modelling, wherein the applying of the modelling operation to modify the at least one first part comprises… the modelling operation is applied to the identified facet at the determined location such that the modelling operation is performed directly on the mesh data without converting the mesh data into the second format , and wherein the applying of the modelling operation to modify the at least one second partis performed without converting the classic geometric representation data into the first format;…. comprising the selected at least one first part in the first format and the selected of the at least one second part in the second format, wherein the mesh data of the first format is a collection of facets, wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in the hybrid boundary representation model, … wherein offsetting, shelling, or thickening operations and detailing is applied directly to the mesh data; and
These are akin to the dynamic document of IV, and the subsequent use of the dynamic document to propagate modifications back to the underlying XML documents, with a desired result, wherein the alleged improvement is furnished solely by the abstract idea itself (as discussed above, see MPEP 2106(II)(A)(2) for Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”) - see 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 the hybrid boundary representation model, wherein the hybrid boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data 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.
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):
obtaining, by a CAD system, a mesh data representation relating to a part of the product comprising scanning, with a scanner, a physical sample of the part, wherein the mesh data representation comprises a plurality of triangles each representing a facet; - and the similar recitations in claims 33 and 36 - this is similar to the example in 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: “The full conventional process is illustrated graphically in Figs. 6a to 6e. …The physical product 10 is scanned, as shown in Fig.6b and the scanned data is imported into a CAD system, where it is converted, i.e. surfaces are constructed which match the scan data, as shown in the image of Fig.6c…” – and for more evidence, see
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.
communicating, by the data processing system, the modified representation for each triangle of the mesh data representation to the hybrid boundary representation model; - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “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);”
and generating and transmitting, by the CAD system, manufacturing instructions for the additive manufacturing of the product using the hybrid boundary representation model, wherein the manufacturing instructions are generated based on the defined points on the mesh representation as identified in the hybrid boundary representation model. - this is considered, as it does not positively require an act of manufacturing but rather is merely generating and transmitting information, similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “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);” – also, see:
¶ 60 of the instant disclosure
Arisoy et al., “DESIGN AND TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION OF LATTICE STRUCTURES USING DEFORMABLE IMPLICIT SURFACES FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING”, 2015, abstract and § 1
Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, abstract and § 1
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: The world's leading production-proven 3D modeling kernel", copyright 2011. Accessed via the Siemens website (Year: 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;
Besl et al., “Hybrid Modeling for Manufacturing using NURBS, Polygons, and 3D Scanner Data”, 1998 abstract, and § 1 including ¶ 1.
applying, by the CAD system, a modelling operation to modify both (1)the selected at least one first part and (2) the selected at least one second part to form a modified multipart product;… - 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…”
deriving, by the CAD system, a second data relating to one or more second parts of the multipart product in a second format, 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
receiving, by the data processing system, instructions of a first selection of at least one first part of the one or more first parts of the multipart product comprising mesh data; receiving, by the data processing system, instructions of a second selection of at least one second part of the one or more second parts of the multipart 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
wherein the mesh data is treated as a surface in the hybrid boundary representation model, wherein the hybrid boundary representation model has a mixture of the mesh data and the classic geometric representation data and similar such recitations:
First, 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 MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I): “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:… 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”
Second, having a collection of facets for mesh data is WURC - ¶¶ 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…”
Third, hybrid models combining different data formats are WURC. This is a term of art.
E.g., see
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.”
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
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.
E.g. see previously cited:
Lai et al., “Blending of mesh objects to parametric surface”, 2015, § 2, last two paragraphs, including: “Hybrid modeling catches the attention of researchers since a hybrid modeling scheme benefits from mixing the different representations. Adzhiev et al. [17] studied a hybrid system of volumetric data, voxel, and implicit surface functions. The method depends on the conversion between voxels and implicit surfaces. Constructive solid geometry (CSG) has been extended in the work of [18] by using a hybridized CSG tree structure called The HybridTree. Blending or Boolean operations between implicit surfaces and meshes are dependent on the associated field functions. The NURBS-based hybridize element proposed by [19] was used to solve the compatibility problem between element surfaces in FEA and CFD simulations. Specific hybrid elements with mesh elements joining a NURBS surface with a watertight boundary was proposed by [20] but the method does not offer a generic hybrid element definition. Martin et al. [21] mixed mesh elements and NURBS elements in volumetric models as a kind of hybrid structure, but the gaps were filled only by an infinite refinement on the mesh side. Modeling free form solid by using Extended Simplicial Chains and PN-Triangles was studied by [22]. The solid resulting from Boolean operation contained trimmed patches.” Besl, “Hybrid Modeling for Manufacturing using NURBS, Polygons, and 3D Scanner Data”, 1998. See § 3, ¶¶ 1-4, then § 5: “A hybrid surface model IS collection of planar polygon sets (always equivalent to a triangle mesh) and NURBS surface sets. The quality of hybrid surface model is related to how well it obeys approximate continuity constraints.”
Pernot et al., “A HYBRID MODELS DEFORMATION TOOL FOR FREE-FORM SHAPES MANIPULATION”, 2008, abstract: “This paper addresses the way models mixing various types of geometric representations (e.g. NURBS curves and patches, polylines, meshes),…”, then § 1: “For two decades, some attempts have been carried out to try to overcome the limits inherent to the low level manipulations of the underlying mathematical models. Today, the challenge lies in the definition and simultaneous manipulation of potentially non-manifold models mixing various types of geometric representations. The final aim is to propose a shape manipulation approach which is completely independent of the underlying geometric representations”, e.g. figure 1, then see § 2 including ¶ 1 and subsection “Mixing models of different continuities”: “Among the possible combinations, the coupling between surfaces and meshes is certainly the most interesting one in terms of potential applications. One application concerns the use of subdivision surfaces together with NURBS surfaces”
Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, 2015, Abstract then see § 3.2.3. See § 1 ¶ 3 and § 2.2 (1) as well, along with fig. 2
Freytag, “B-rep SE: Simplicially Enhanced Boundary Representation”, Abstract, § 1.2.
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 24 recites addition steps in the math concept, including the use of a formula in textual form. See Appeal ‘206, page 9, for its discussed on ¶¶ 83 and 88 of the instant disclosure. The “identifying” steps are part of the math concept, i.e. establishing the mathematical variables representation the geometrical math relationships of a triangle; and furthermore people are readily able to perform such identifications, e.g. when applying the Pythrogrean theorem
Claim 25 - a mental step/process, such as a person mentally visualizing an update to a representation of the part, e.g. an engineer mentally visualizing a design change to a part, or a fashion designer mentally visualizing a design change (e.g. the product being a dress, and the part being straps of the dress, wherein the designer mentally visualizes what different straps would be best suited for the dress).
Claim 26 recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (via the user input), followed by an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data transmission as well as part of the mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of the mental process of a mental observation of a point on the mesh (to clarify, the use of a facet identifier and a unique point for identifying a point on the mesh is akin to the mental act of observing a map for a specific region, e.g. US Interstate I-95 and the unique point of mile marker 35, and observing where that point is on the map), wherein this may readily be performed with a simple mesh, e.g. fig. 12-13.
The insignificant extra-solution activity is additionally considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, similar to the examples in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,… i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
Claims 28 is merely further limiting the abstract idea as discussed in detail for similar limitations in claim 23 above
Claim 30 recites another portion of the math concept in the form of mathematical relationships/equations in geometry in textual form. To clarify on the BRI of the term “affine transformation”, while the instant disclosure (¶ 26) does not define what this term is, see Eck, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Math 204: Linear Algebra, Fall 2020, Reading Guides for Math 204, Chapter 16: “Affine Transformations”, accessed via URL: math(dot)hws(dot)edu/eck/math204/guide2020/16-affine-maps(dot)html:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 37 recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering followed by mere data transmission and generally linking to a particular field of use wherein these are considered 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)… 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;”, also see the instant disclosure, ¶¶ 56, 60-61
See MPEP § 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”
Claim 38 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 37.
Claim 39 recites: “…generating the physical sample of the part” – this is an insignificant extra-solution activity performed as part of the data gathering - to clarify, MPEP § 2106.05(g): “i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation… iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price…” – the generating of the physical sample as recited in claim is considered similar to the acts of “Presenting offers to potential customers…” and “Performing clinical tests on individuals…” – as the generation of the physical sample is, as claimed, solely for the purpose of performing mere data gathering using the physical sample, similar to how presenting the offer was used for “gathering statistics”, and similar to how performing the clinical tests was used such to “obtain input for an equation”
To clarify on the BRI of claim 39, ¶ 64 of the disclosure: “The first stage is for the designer [a person] to generate 50 the physical model, for example from wood or clay. When the designer is happy with the form of the physical model, the model is scanned 51 and the scanned data…”
Claim 39 is additionally considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d) when claim 39 is taken in view of ¶ 64 and in further view of ¶ 61 of the instant disclosure, wherein this is also similar to the example in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document” as the physical document would have been generated such as to be scanned
Claim 40 is reciting addition steps in the mathematical concept and further limiting the mathematical concept in geometry (note which limitations in particular it has antecedent basis back to)
Claim 41 is specifying a further portion of the mathematical concept
Claim 43 recites additional steps in the mathematical concept for similar reasons as the limitations it further limits as discussed above
Claims 45-51 rejected under similar rationales as their parallel dependent claims discussed above.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Faken et al., 2008/0246761.Abstract, see ¶¶ 3-5, 6-9, 36-38, 41.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights