DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Nov. 19th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-27 have been presented for examination.
Claims 6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claims 6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-27 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(s) 6, 10-12, 15, 17-18, 20-21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012
Claim(s) 8-9, 14, 19, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012 in further Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, 2015
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012 in further view of Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, 2015 in further view of AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0
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 § 112(a) Rejection
Withdrawn in view of amendment.
Regarding the NSDP rejection
Withdrawn in view of terminal disclaimer.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment
With respect to the remarks for the 3D, humans have long mentally visualized 3D products as part of the mental process of designing products, e.g. the cotton gin is a 3D product, as it a carriage to be pulled by horses, etc. Pen and paper have long routinely been used as physical aids in this process, e.g. drawings in patent filings in the 1800s so as to allow the mind of the reader to envision the 3D product that would result one simply made the product described in the patent filing and shown by its drawings, or drawings of engineering schematics so as to aid in the mental process and mental visualizations of the engineer designing a new product.
Or simple equations and values of variables may be used to design and model a 3D product, e.g. suppose the product is a simple driveshaft, e.g. that of a carriable where its shape was merely that of a cylinder. The equations of a cylinder [example of a classic geometry format; ¶ 42: “a classic geometric representation is a geometric representation based on curved surfaces.”] from geometry are readily mentally evaluated, and one simply uses those equations with known dimensions (e.g. radius, and height, of the cylinder) so to have a 3D mathematical representation. Such is a basic tool of all scientific and engineering work. 2D drawings showing various 3D perspectives are also a useful aid in the mental process, e.g. sketch the cylinder, write the equations, solve the equations, write the final dimensions on the drawings, and hand off the drawings to a carpenter who will mentally visualize the final product, and manufacture it from wood by manual techniques (e.g. for a horsedrawn carriage).
Meshes are also readily performed and manipulated as a mental process. E.g. in view of example 45, claim 1, discussion of the Arrhenius equation being used in the 1800s in its prong 1 analysis, and MPEP § 2111.01(I and III) for the BRI in view of extrinsic evidence, see previously cited Liebling et al., “VORONOI DIAGRAMS AND DELAUNAY TRIANGULATIONS: UBIQUITOUS SIAMESE TWINS”, 2012 discuss the discovery of meshes and meshing techniques long before computers, e.g. see § 2, see fig. 2, dated from around 1854, showing a hand-drawn meshes, including one of a Voroni mesh of the city of London (§ 2 ¶ 1).
Thus, a person is readily able to mentally visualize a 3D product using mesh data and classic geometry data.
E.g. suppose the product is a simple sundial. A person would readily be able to write out a few simple geometry equations to represent the cylindrical post, a cuboidal/cylindrical base, and a cylindrical top to the sundial, with another simple shape for the gnomon. Now the person is tasked with identifying how long to make to the gnonmon (the part of the sundial for casting a shadow for the time) for a certain part of the world, so they could readily draw, or mentally visualize, a mesh of the circular region of the top of the sundial, e.g. dividing the circle up into multiple slices around the center, and then mentally evaluating what size of shadow is needed to accurately tell time for each slice.
Or even simpler products, e.g. a person is designing a set of basic shapes for children’s toys, so they use simple equations to represent the shapes, e.g. a cube, a cylinder, a pyramid, etc., and then they mentally visualize designs for aesthetic artwork on the sides, e.g. mentally visualizing a mesh of 4 triangles to form each face of the pyramid.
With respect to the remarks, at prong one, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It’s directed towards a similar abstract idea as Intellectual Ventures Iv. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), i.e. creating a combined representation with a “relationship” [the dynamic document of IV] between two pieces of data in its own respective data formats, and wherein “nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents [or in this case, “mesh data” and “classic geometry data”].” The present claims even include a propagating limitation based on the established relationship, i.e. See Intellectual Ventures Iv. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017): “According to the patent, the user can then make changes to the data displayed in the dynamic document and the changes will be dynamically propagated back into the original XML document (despite the acknowledged compatibility problems with such documents) ...” – wherein the Fed. Circuit later stated: “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”.
All this instant claim does is be directed to a very similar abstract idea as IV, but in a new data environment, which does not render it eligible.
See rejection for more clarity.
With respect to the prong 2 remarks, see IV, wherein these remarks do not point to how the computer is to do the modifications/manipulations of data as recited in the claim itself.
Merely specifying a purely functional desired result of the step is not how, and that is all these claims do, i.e. “applying…a modeling operation [a modification] comprising establishing a relationship [dynamic document] between the…mesh data… the classic geometry data [underlying XML documents with incompatibilities between their formats that require manual conversion]”, and specify with particularity the content of the data (the content of particular documents in IV).
There is no improvement to technology from this invention, and “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” MPEP § 2106.05(I), which is what this is alleging.
With respect to the 2B remarks, these point to the entire claim as an additional element for the WURC, but such is not the legal test. MPEP § 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).”
Furthermore, these remarks do not address the WURC evidence of record.
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to remarks regarding the Matt and Liepa, these are a piecemeal analysis of the references for each taken alone in isolation, rather than what would have been fairly suggested when POSITA took Liepa, and its teaching, including its method of manipulating/modifying the original/input models (Liepa, as was cited, incl. ¶¶ 41-44; 46, etc. for the mapping, then ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).”), as was taken in view of Matt for a particular modification of the “offset mesh trick” for mesh data to accomplish a similar result as a shelling operation when the shelling operation “didn’t work” (Matt, as cited) and the suggestion by commenter Kevin Quigley as cited to: “Cadjunkie has a great demo video of tysElements where he models a toy car in Modo and shows this offset mesh trick into SolidWorks via TsElements [i.e. to elements of a mesh] ... This is why I think the future is a combination of mesh and nurbs [e.g. in a system such as Leipa]”
First, these remarks focus on the manual activity of Matt themselves using AutoCAD to perform this offset trick, but do not address MPEP § 2144.04(III), i.e. it would have been prima facie obvious to have the computer of Liepa perform this same modeling operation automatically, wherein in Matt a computer and CAD software was still used to perform it automatically once user input was received, because this would have been faster.
Second, these remarks don’t address the comment for what Matt suggested to Kevin Quigley, who discussed the use of this trick in the comments of Matt’s webpage as particularly cited.
Third, this attacks solely Matt, rather then Leipa, as was taken in combination with Matt as particularly cited in the rejection, i.e. it’s a piecemeal attack on Matt alone.
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 6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 6 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 15 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 20 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Claims 20, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 15, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
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 6 is:
establishing a relationship between the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the 3D product and an outer surface of a second region of the one or more second regions of the product
The mathematical concept recited in claim 15 is:
establish a relationship between the first mesh region of the one or more mesh regions and a first classic geometry region of the one or more classic geometry regions comprising deriving the established relationship between the inner surface of the first mesh region and an outer surface of the first classic geometry region,
The above noted limitations are a mathematical relationship in textual form of a geometrical relationship between two shapes (“regions of the product”), and the geometrical relationship is “between an inner surface” of the first shape and “an outer surface” of the second shape.
To clarify, the Examiner notes that the instant disclosure (¶¶ 9-11, 14-16) does not describe with any particularity how the establishing is performed, nor what the relationship is, but rather only that this is a “relationship between” two regions of a product, wherein the geometry of the first region is described by a “mesh” representation, and the geometry of the second region is described by a “classic geometry representation” (e.g. fig. 8 # 15 and # 16), i.e. the “mesh” and “classic geometry representation” are merely specifying what is used to represent the geometry in which the relationship is established between.
For example, such a relationship may be a parameterization such as discussed in PTAB Appeal 2024-000206 on related US application # 17/098,340 (the Examiner notes that the instant disclosure describes the functionality of this relationship in a similar manner as the ‘340 parameterization), or such as relationship may readily be any other simple geometrical relationship.
In addition, see Appendix 1 to the Oct. 2019 PEG, page 36: “The examiner may also cite a court decision that supports the identification of limitations (a) and (b) as abstract ideas within the “mental process” grouping in the 2019 PEG” – wherein the Examiner notes that such a geometrical relationship between shapes is discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) “iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 6) expressed the mathematical relationship in words)”
Furthermore, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): “ii. a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674;” – to clarify, in the opinion: “The patent sought is on a method of programming a general-purpose digital computer to convert signals from binary-coded decimal form into pure binary form. A procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem is known as an "algorithm." The procedures set forth in the present claims are of that kind; that is to say, they are a generalized formulation for programs to solve mathematical problems of converting one form of numerical representation to another.”
To clarify on the relevance of this, the Examiner notes that in PTAB Appeal 2024-000206, at page 6: “The Examiner adds that "the alleged improvement is to address 'a problem as facet meshes cannot be parameterized in the same way as a boundary representation model,"' and "[t]his is a problem in the mathematical concepts of meshes and B-rep [boundary representation] models." Id. at 5.” And at page 12: “We do not agree that the extracting and deriving steps recite an improvement to technology because, as correctly found by the Examiner, "the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement." Ans. 9 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, "no matter how groundbreaking the advance.").” – and see the Examiner’s answer, page 9, as cited to by PTAB which states “this is not a technical problem as alleged but rather a problem in the mathematical concepts of meshing and boundary representation models…”. Additional clarification, including supporting evidence that this is a mathematical problem known to those skilled in the art of CAD, was also provided in that previous Examiner’s answer.
The present claimed invention, and disclosed, is drawn towards addressing this sustainably the same mathematical problem, with a mathematical solution of the use of a mathematical relationship in geometry, as recited in the present claims. See ¶ 10 of the instant disclosure.
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 6 is:
…establishing a relationship between the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the 3D product and an outer surface of a second region of the one or more second regions of the 3D product, - a mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, given the high level of generality recited in this step (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): “claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”) . For example, a person may readily observe the representation of the product in mesh form and classic geometry form, e.g. fig. 8 (on either a display of a computer, or on a printout), and mentally observe a relationship between # 15 and # 16, and/or mentally evaluate the observed representation to establish a relationship, e.g. mentally evaluating the intersection of the two regions # 10 and # 15 and evaluating/judging intersection parameters which describe the relationship of the intersection. A person would be able to be aided by a physical aid in this task, such as using a ruler and/or a protractor, and/or using pen and paper (e.g. overlaying translucent graphing paper on a printout of fig. 9 so as to trace an relationship of an intersection between the two regions).
To give another example, the relationship may be the thickness of the walls of the product, i.e. a relationship describing the distance between the outer surface of # 15 and the inside surface # 16, wherein a person would be able to mentally observe what this thickness is, or use physical aids such as the ones discussed above to establish the relationship.
To clarify, the Examiner notes that the instant disclosure (¶¶ 9-11, 14-16) does not describe with any particularity how the establishing is performed, nor what the relationship is, but rather only what it is “between” which is two shapes/regions, such as one that would readily be observable by a person looking at the two regions, and/or mentally judging/evaluating, such as with a mental visualization, what a relationship between the two regions are.
In addition to the above, the Examiner notes that the claims places no restrictions on what the product is, as such the claimed invention is readily applicable to much simpler geometries than the one shown in figure 8, e.g. a product of a simple bucket with straight walls (i.e. a cylinder), wherein the inside of the bucket is represented by a mesh, and the outside of the bucket is represented by a classic geometry representation.
For such a bucket, i.e. a cylinder with an open top with straight (i.e. non-tapered) walls with a finite thickness, a person would readily be able to observe the representation of bucket, and mentally judge that, because it is a simple bucket, a relationship may readily be established between the inside of the bucket and the outside of the bucket by writing down the equations representing a cylinder, and performing some simple calculations with those equations using the dimensions of the bucket.
developing, by the processor, structural body parts or tooling for manufacture based on the established relationship; - a mental judgement/evaluation, but do it on a computer. For example, the person mentally observes a product such as the one depicted in figures 8-9, or a simpler product such as of a hammer (e.g. a hammer where the head of the hammer is a mesh region, and the handle of the hammer is a classic geometry region), mentally evaluates/judges/observes a relationship between the two regions (e.g. where the handle of the hammer will be coupled with the head of the hammer), and then mentally evaluates the relationship to develop tooling for manufacture (e.g. mentally judging to use a mold for casting the head of the hammer), or to develop structure body parts (e.g. mentally judging to affix the head of the hammer to the handle of the hammer by putting a hole through the head of the hammer, or by using two metal plates that would be affixed to both the hammer head and the handle so as to join them in the shape of a hammer). A similar mental process would be performed for other simple products, like the above discussed bucket, e.g. a person mentally judging/evaluating how to put handles on the bucket (example of a structural body part) or judge to reinforce the bucket with ribs on the inside (another example of a structural body part), or evaluate how to manufacture the bucket (e.g. design a hammer for making a wooden bucket).
A person would readily be able to perform such tasks in their mind, such as by using mental visualizations to aid the mental process, or by using pen and paper, and/or other physical aids such as rulers and protractors, to make drawings to aid the mental process.
…wherein the offsetting operation generates an inner surface of a first mesh region of the one or more mesh regions, - a person mentally judging to modify a design of a product such by offsetting part of the product it with mere instructions to perform this step with a computer and in a computer environment
To clarify, all this is conveying is the mental process of mentally observing, e.g. by mental visualization, a simple product, e.g. a solid cube, and then mentally judging to hollow out the cube by offsetting the walls of the cube to hollow it out in the mental visualization. To clarify, one simply needs to mentally visualize taking a solid cube, and then deciding/judging to make it a hollow cube where in the wall thickness is say 5 millimeters, and thus one mentally visualizes taking the solid cube and offsetting its outer walls by 5 mm to create the boundaries of the inner walls.
Doing this with mesh regions is readily a mental process, as a person is readily able to mentally draw a simple mesh or mentally visualize it, e.g. a few triangles. The Examiner also notes that meshing pre-dates the invention of the computer. Liebling et al., “VORONOI DIAGRAMS AND DELAUNAY TRIANGULATIONS: UBIQUITOUS SIAMESE TWINS”, 2012, § 2 describes the history of meshing/tessellation techniques including showing that meshing technique were developed in the time of the “Renaissance”, and provides extensive discussion of the advancement of meshing techniques before the invention of the computer.
The mental process recited in claim 15 is:
establish a relationship between the first mesh region of the one or more mesh regions and a first classic geometry region of the one or more classic geometry regions comprising deriving the established relationship between the inner surface of the first mesh region and an outer surface of the first classic geometry region- rejected under a similar rationale as the similar limitation in claim 6.
develop structural body parts or tooling for manufacture based on the established relationship; - rejected under a similar rationale as the similar limitation in claim 6.
… wherein the offsetting operation generates an inner surface of a first region of the one or more first regions, - rejected under a similar rationale as the similar limitation in claim 6.
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 6 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 6, 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.”
Should further clarification be required on the above, the Examiner also notes that Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f): “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"))” is informative to the presently recited abstract idea.
The present claims have two underlying types of data the “mesh data” and the “classic geometry data”, wherein the present abstract idea seeks to avoid a conversion between the mesh data and another format in a manner that allows changes to the data of either format to be propagated between the data forms. To do so, it uses a “relationship” established between these two portions of data.
See Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017): “The '081 patent explains that companies frequently use XML documents to publish various types of information that customers and partners use, such as invoices, purchase orders, and price lists. Because XML users can create their own unique formats using these XML rules, not all formats are compatible. Therefore, companies attempting to share these types of XML documents may find them incompatible with their own [***6] XML formats. Resolving this conflict, the '081 patent contends, was a difficult task that required specialized programming skills to manipulate and transfer XML documents into the desired format… Thus, the '081 patent identified what its inventor perceived as a need to "allow[] the user to view and update XML documents in different formats, and allow[] the user to manipulate the data and perform actions without programming skills." '081 patent col. 1 ll. 45-48. To fulfill this need, the patent describes presenting the user with a second document—the "dynamic document"—which is based upon data extracted from the original XML document. According to the patent, the user can then make changes to the data displayed in the dynamic document and the changes will be dynamically propagated back into the original XML document (despite the acknowledged compatibility problems with such 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 present claims are drawn towards an abstract idea akin to Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp, i.e. the “relationship” is akin to the dynamic document, and instead of XML documents in different data forms, it is in the context of CAD with mesh data formats and classic geometry formats, so as to propagate changes, i.e. modifications, back into the original data forms, wherein one may use this “relationship” as a means for “displaying and organizing this underlying data” (Intellectual Ventures, as cited above) – see instant fig. 8-9. To clarify, the Examiner notes that Intellectual Ventures stated this was a “abstract concept of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents” – which, under the office guidance, is a mental process, as discussed above. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
The Examiner notes that there is a distinction with Intellectual Ventures and the present claims, specifically that the claimed relationship as claimed is also a mathematical relationship in the mathematical field of geometry for the reasons discussed above.
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Claim 6 - A method of modelling a product implemented on a data processing system, the method comprising:… by a processor of the data processing system… by the processor, - claim 15 - A data processing system comprising: a store; a display; and at least a processor and accessible memory, comprising wherein the processor and the accessible memory are configured to: - claim 20 – A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more data processing systems to
Claim 6 - by a display of the data processing system or storing in a store of the data processing system… – and the similar recitations in the other dependent claims convey merely the use of a generic, off-the-shelf display in its ordinary capacity (¶¶ 34-35 in the disclosure) and generic use of a computer to store data in a store of the computer
Claim 6 - supplying, by the processor, updated data for one of the one or more first regions or one of the one or more second regions of the 3D product; - and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 15 as representative): supply updated data for one of the one or more first mesh regions or one of the one or more first classic geometry regions; - mere instructions to apply a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, e.g. a person mentally judging an update to the product, and then using a computer as a tool to supply updated data to the mesh/classic geometry region so as ensure a computer model of the product reflects the mental model of the product. Should further clarification be required, see Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as discussed above and in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 - propagating, by the processor, the updated data for the one of the one or more first regions to one of the second regions or propagating the updated data for the one of the one or more second regions to one of the one or more first regions, regardless of data format, based on the established relationship;- and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 15 as representative): and propagate the updated data, regardless of data format, based on the established relationship,; - as well as in claim 6 - wherein the mesh data of the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the product is used directly without conversion of the mesh data the classic geometry data;- and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20
This is mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, e.g. a person mentally judging to change the product by judging that an intersection relationship between the two regions should be altered, and then using a computer as a tool to propagate the change to the data in the computer. When read in view of the instant disclosure (¶¶ 10-11, 44: “This has the advantage, among other advantages, that the designer is able to model changes to all of the parts of a product, regardless of whether the design data is held in facet form, or as a classic geometric representation”, 47, 50) this is also considered as mere instructions to apply it because this is an “attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result” (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), as the claim places no restriction on how the changes are propagated regardless of the data format, akin to “In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). To further clarify on this point, see the instant disclosure ¶¶ 10-11 and 41-44, then see the opinion of Intellectual Ventures: “…Because XML users can create their own unique formats using these XML rules, not all formats are compatible. Therefore, companies attempting to share these types of XML documents may find them incompatible with their own [***6] XML formats. Resolving this conflict, the '081 patent contends, was a difficult task that required specialized programming skills to manipulate and transfer XML documents into the desired format …According to the patent, the user can then make changes to the data displayed in the dynamic document and the changes will be dynamically propagated back into the original XML document (despite the acknowledged compatibility problems with such 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 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 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")”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
Claim 6 as representative: apply an offsetting operation directly to the connected collection of facets of the mesh data, wherein the offsetting operation generates an inner surface of a first mesh region of the one or more mesh regions, and wherein the offsetting operation is applied to the connected collection of facets of the mesh data without any conversion of the connected collection of facets to the classic geometry data; both part of the mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea as well as mere instructions to “apply it” as this step is a results-oriented limitation including the recitation of “without any conversion of the connected collection of facets to a surface representation” with no restriction on how this result is achieved (To clarify, see MPEP § 2106.05(f): “In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))”), as well as an additional insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering
Claim 6 as representative: applying, by the processor, a modelling operation comprising establishing a relationship between the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the 3D product and an outer surface of a second region of the one or more second regions of the 3D product, wherein the mesh data of the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the product is used directly without conversion of the mesh data to the classic geometry data; -and the similar recitations in the other independent claims are considered as mere nesting an abstract idea into mere instructions to do it on a computer and mere instructions to “apply it” as but for the abstract idea itself, this merely expresses “applying…a modeling operation”, akin to the modification in IV in 2106.05(f) with a desired result to avoid conversion of data, for similar reasons as discussed above. Such a generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the claim recites no particularity in how the desired result is to be achieved with a technological implementation (e.g. Research Corps. in 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) and 2106.05(a)); but rather merely expresses the use of an abstract idea on its own, without any clear instructions on how the computer data structures themselves are to be manipulated (in contrast, see Research Corps.) to achieve this desired result (akin to IV in 2106.05(f), also see Affinity Labs in 2106.05(a): “In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” - see the above discussed rationales for more clarification this
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
The “obtaining…” of obtaining the necessary data for use in the abstract idea are mere data gathering
Claim 6 - applying, by the processor, an offsetting operation directly to a connected collection of facets of the first data, wherein the offsetting operation generates an inner surface of a first region of the one or more first regions, and wherein the offsetting operation is applied to the connected collection of facets of the mesh data without any conversion of the connected collection of facets to the classic geometry data; … applying, by the processor, a modelling operation… wherein the mesh data of the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the product is used directly without conversion of the mesh data to another data format;- a token insignificant extra-solution activity that is nominally/tangentially linked the primary process of the claimed invention (the establishment of the relationship itself) with a purely results-oriented recitation expressing what is to be achieved but failing to express how the computer is to achieve the desired results
Claim 6 - supplying, by the processor, updated data for one of the one or more first regions or one of the one or more second regions of the 3D product; - and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 15 as representative) – mere data gathering/transmitting
Claim 6 - propagating, by the processor, the updated data for the one of the one or more first regions to one of the second regions or propagating the updated data for the one of the one or more second regions to one of the one or more first regions, regardless of data format, based on the established relationship; - and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 6 as representative) - mere data gathering/transmission
Claim 6 - and displaying, by a display of the data processing system or storing in a store of the data processing system, a representation of the modelled 3D product and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 6 as representative) – mere data storage and displaying, wherein but for the information being “for the modelled product” is entirely tangential to the primary process of the claimed invention (in particular, note the lack of antecedents to any of the other prior elements and limitations).
In addition, should the recitations of “mesh data” and “classic geometry data” be found to not be part of the abstract idea, then these would merely be linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, akin to the XML documents being specified in Intellectual Ventures as discussed above.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Claim 6 - A method of modelling a product implemented on a data processing system, the method comprising:… by a processor of the data processing system… by the processor, - claim 15 - A data processing system comprising: a store; a display; and at least a processor and accessible memory, comprising wherein the processor and the accessible memory are configured to: - claim 20 – A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more data processing systems to
Claim 6 - by a display of the data processing system or storing in a store of the data processing system… – and the similar recitations in the other dependent claims convey merely the use of a generic, off-the-shelf display in its ordinary capacity (¶¶ 34-35 in the disclosure) and generic use of a computer to store data in a store of the computer
Claim 6 - supplying, by the processor, updated data for one of the one or more first regions or one of the one or more second regions of the 3D product; - and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 15 as representative): supply updated data for one of the one or more first mesh regions or one of the one or more first classic geometry regions; - mere instructions to apply a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, e.g. a person mentally judging an update to the product, and then using a computer as a tool to supply updated data to the mesh/classic geometry region so as ensure a computer model of the product reflects the mental model of the product. Should further clarification be required, see Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as discussed above and in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 - propagating, by the processor, the updated data for the one of the one or more first regions to one of the second regions or propagating the updated data for the one of the one or more second regions to one of the one or more first regions, regardless of data format, based on the established relationship;- and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 15 as representative): and propagate the updated data, regardless of data format, based on the established relationship,; - as well as in claim 6 - wherein the mesh data of the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the product is used directly without conversion of the mesh data the classic geometry data;- and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20
This is mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, e.g. a person mentally judging to change the product by judging that an intersection relationship between the two regions should be altered, and then using a computer as a tool to propagate the change to the data in the computer. When read in view of the instant disclosure (¶¶ 10-11, 44: “This has the advantage, among other advantages, that the designer is able to model changes to all of the parts of a product, regardless of whether the design data is held in facet form, or as a classic geometric representation”, 47, 50) this is also considered as mere instructions to apply it because this is an “attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result” (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), as the claim places no restriction on how the changes are propagated regardless of the data format, akin to “In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). To further clarify on this point, see the instant disclosure ¶¶ 10-11 and 41-44, then see the opinion of Intellectual Ventures: “…Because XML users can create their own unique formats using these XML rules, not all formats are compatible. Therefore, companies attempting to share these types of XML documents may find them incompatible with their own [***6] XML formats. Resolving this conflict, the '081 patent contends, was a difficult task that required specialized programming skills to manipulate and transfer XML documents into the desired format …According to the patent, the user can then make changes to the data displayed in the dynamic document and the changes will be dynamically propagated back into the original XML document (despite the acknowledged compatibility problems with such 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 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 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")”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
Claim 6 as representative: apply an offsetting operation directly to the connected collection of facets of the mesh data, wherein the offsetting operation generates an inner surface of a first mesh region of the one or more mesh regions, and wherein the offsetting operation is applied to the connected collection of facets of the mesh data without any conversion of the connected collection of facets to the classic geometry data; both part of the mere instructions to use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea as well as mere instructions to “apply it” as this step is a results-oriented limitation including the recitation of “without any conversion of the connected collection of facets to a surface representation” with no restriction on how this result is achieved (To clarify, see MPEP § 2106.05(f): “In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))”), as well as an additional insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering
Claim 6 as representative: applying, by the processor, a modelling operation comprising establishing a relationship between the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the 3D product and an outer surface of a second region of the one or more second regions of the 3D product, wherein the mesh data of the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the product is used directly without conversion of the mesh data to the classic geometry data; -and the similar recitations in the other independent claims are considered as mere nesting an abstract idea into mere instructions to do it on a computer and mere instructions to “apply it” as but for the abstract idea itself, this merely expresses “applying…a modeling operation”, akin to the modification in IV in 2106.05(f) with a desired result to avoid conversion of data, for similar reasons as discussed above. Such a generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the claim recites no particularity in how the desired result is to be achieved with a technological implementation (e.g. Research Corps. in 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) and 2106.05(a)); but rather merely expresses the use of an abstract idea on its own, without any clear instructions on how the computer data structures themselves are to be manipulated (in contrast, see Research Corps.) to achieve this desired result (akin to IV in 2106.05(f), also see Affinity Labs in 2106.05(a): “In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” - see the above discussed rationales for more clarification this
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
The “obtaining…” of obtaining the necessary data for use in the abstract idea are mere data gathering
Claim 6 - applying, by the processor, an offsetting operation directly to a connected collection of facets of the first data, wherein the offsetting operation generates an inner surface of a first region of the one or more first regions, and wherein the offsetting operation is applied to the connected collection of facets of the mesh data without any conversion of the connected collection of facets to the classic geometry data; … applying, by the processor, a modelling operation… wherein the mesh data of the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the product is used directly without conversion of the mesh data to another data format;- a token insignificant extra-solution activity that is nominally/tangentially linked the primary process of the claimed invention (the establishment of the relationship itself) with a purely results-oriented recitation expressing what is to be achieved but failing to express how the computer is to achieve the desired results
Claim 6 - supplying, by the processor, updated data for one of the one or more first regions or one of the one or more second regions of the 3D product; - and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 15 as representative) – mere data gathering/transmitting
Claim 6 - propagating, by the processor, the updated data for the one of the one or more first regions to one of the second regions or propagating the updated data for the one of the one or more second regions to one of the one or more first regions, regardless of data format, based on the established relationship; - and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 6 as representative) - mere data gathering/transmission
Claim 6 - and displaying, by a display of the data processing system or storing in a store of the data processing system, a representation of the modelled 3D product and the similar recitations in claims 15 and 20 (claim 6 as representative) – mere data storage and displaying, wherein but for the information being “for the modelled product” is entirely tangential to the primary process of the claimed invention (in particular, note the lack of antecedents to any of the other prior elements and limitations).
In addition, should the recitations of “mesh data” and “classic geometry data” be found to not be part of the abstract idea, then these would merely be linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, akin to the XML documents being specified in Intellectual Ventures as discussed above.
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):
The steps identified above as mere data gathering are considered WURC in view of 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”. For additional evidence, see
The instant disclosure, figures 7a-7e and 12, and their accompanying descriptions, also see ¶¶ 41-44 and 56-57.
Previously cited Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, May 2015, see § 1 ¶¶ 1-3, also see page 799, col. 1, ¶ 2: “Currently, the Boolean operations on two same types of geometric models, such as two exact B-rep models or two mesh models, have been researched intensively in past years and great progress has been made”, then see figure 2 and its accompanying description in § 2.2, and see page 803.
Previously cited Pan et al., “Computer-aided design-while-engineering technology in top-down modeling of mechanical product”, 2016, abstract, then see § 1 including ¶¶ 1-3 including: “Ideally, CAD/E integration can be achieved via geometry information sharing and derivation throughout the product evolvement with constant changes… Any modification made by the designer to CAD model leads the analyst to restart the whole tedious work of geometry’s preparation for simulation [2]. If product design and analysis are performed by one engineer, he has to work with two or more independent software packages for modeling and analysis in most of the time, and yet has to maintain the associativity by checking the constraints applied throughout the engineering processes… In general, challenges of an ideal and practical CAD/E integration system are summarized as follows: (1) data structures should be compatible and exchange process is seamless; (2) little even no software development and user programming; (3) integration activities should be in common use and not for a single project; (4) change propagation is supported in any design stage accurately, automatically and synchronous; (5) should be suitable for top–down design in products with complex assembly structure; (6) can support concurrent engineering.”, then see § 2 including the last two paragraphs, then see § 2.2 including: “Many efforts have been made to work with the conversion from CAD model to CAE model. Since data exchange is central to the implementation of a collaborative environment, much previous research efforts focused on standardizing data and data exchange methodologies…” and § 2.3 including: “In order to integrate information between CAD and CAE, middleware development approach is also favored widely. Propagation of changes is also managed by optimization methods and embedded knowledge…” and § 2.4 including: “Though it is made possible in a sense to keep the consistency and interoperability of CAD and CAE models with the help of compatible data structure, some major problems are still exists as follows: (1) how to automatically map CAD (or CAE) shape representation to the CAE (or CAD) model with little manual operations; (2) how the unified data are organized to maintain real-time propagation of changes in overall stage; (3) how to meet the needs involved in the product with complex assembly structure”
Previously cited Xia et al., “A CAD/CAE incorporate software framework using a unified representation architecture”, 2015, abstract, then see § 1 including: “CAD/CAE integration aims to reduce human interactions in the design process of geometric modeling and structure performance analysis to improve the efficiency of product design [3]. Nowadays, most of these tools could be broken down into two types. One is interface based on data exchange, which is widely used to integrate heterogeneous platforms…” then see § 2 including: “…In mechanical practices, the structural analysis usually uses FEA in the high fidelity level (HFL), which is performed by professional CAE systems associated with specific CAD system. However, CAD and CAE systems usually use different data formats to represent the design geometry [7,14]….To support the B-Rep and polyhedral model simultaneously, Hamri et al. [10] introduced an HLT (High Level Topology) based on the mixed shape representation, which creates a robust link between CAD and CAE models… Another way of CAD/CAE integration is that both CAD and CAE use the same model. Gujarathi and Ma [9] put forward a common data model (CDM) to implement CAD/CAE integration, which contains parameters required for the CAD modeling and CAE analysis. Lee [14] presented a single master model containing different types of all the geometric models required for CAD and CAE….”, also see §§ 3-3.1, page 75, col. 2, ¶ 1, and page 80, col. 2, ¶ 1.
Previously cited Hamri et al., “Software environment for CAD/CAE integration”, 2010, see §1 then see § 2.
Previously cited Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077, ¶¶ 7-10, 47-48, 51
Previously cited Ferrari et al., “An extended B-Rep solid modeling kernel integrating mesh and NURBS faces”, 2018, see § 1 including ¶¶ 3-5 and §§ 2.4-2.5
Previously cited Botsch et al., “Geometric Modeling Based on Polygonal Meshes”, 2007, § 1
Additional evidence is provided below in the consideration of the dependent claims, with specific citation, should it be required, e.g. see the discussion of claim 10 for additional WURC evidence on facets being WURC.
With respect to the offsetting operations and use in the manner claimed to generate an inner surface from an outer surface, such a technique is WURC in the art:
WURC in view of ¶¶ 61-62
Siemens, "Parasolid: The world's leading production-proven modeling kernel", copyright 2011, page 7: “Parasolid delivers a range of methods that enable CAD users to create thin-walled parts using simple inputs, including: • Thickening of sheet models • Hollowing of solid models • General offsetting Each of these methods provides powerful functionality, including automatic self-intersection removal and together form a comprehensive suite of tools that accelerate the design of plastic moldings, castings, pressings and panels.” And page 8: “Model simplification”: “Parasolid can be used to identify and remove model details, including holes, blends and arbitrary faces to support downstream operations – such as finite element analysis and CAM – where certain model details can be safely ignored…”
See Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, Jan. 2012, “And then finally, we get to stuff like what is shown on the right. This was scanned in, and then the point cloud was surfaced over badly, and my job was to shell it. Obviously, shell the Shell feature didn’t work for this. This Shell was shelled manually by offsetting the outer shell surface to the inside, trimming out some undercuts, then creating a solid from the original, offsetting a sketch to the inside of the back of the solid block, and cutting up to the offset and trimmed surface. Ugly, and certainly not exact, but it worked, and they are casting parts now.” In addition, also note the comment by Kevin Quigley on Jan. 11th, 2012: “Cadjunkie has a great demo video of tysElements where he models a toy car in Modo and shows this offset mesh trick into SolidWorks via TsElements… This is why I think the future is a combination of mesh and nurbs” – such a trick is WURC to POSITAs in the art.
Skills Factory, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2015 – 3D Surfaces and Mesh Objects [Complete]*”, Sept. 2nd, 2014, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=hjEkP13KvIg – see the video and transcript for: “4:29 - The Offset command can create copies of your surface very fast. Just select 4:37 - the surface interested, and define the direction using your Up and Down 4:43 - Arrow keys in the dialog box and using Flip Direction or Both Sides.”
AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0 – “3:00 - context as in this example this 3:02 - motorcycle was modeled 100% inside 3:05 - AutoCAD using mesh and solids another 3:08 - section will show that the converted 3:10 - mesh can allow any of the solid 3:12 - operations like in this case 3:14 - shell within a few hours a proficient 3:17 - user can come up with a model like this 3:20 - which would have taken an important 3:22 - amount of time before or would have just 3:24 - been impossible to create in 3:28 - alet for for a better visualization of”
Mufasu CAD, YouTube Video: “Understanding AutoCAD Shell Command”, May 9th, 2014, URL: youtube.com/watch?v=qCr-PihAUe8 -see 40 seconds to 1:12 which shows the shelling command to shell a solid object’s outer boundary and create an inner wall, in particular note at 1:04 it is “Enter the shell offset distance”. A similar task is performed with another object around 2:47, wherein 2:47 also shows “Enter the shell offset distance”.
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.
Claim 6 - and displaying, by a display of the data processing system or storing in a store of the data processing system, a representation of the modelled 3D product. – and the similar recitations in the other independent claims are WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as well as example 46, claim 1, for its displaying step for how it was considered at 2B for WURC. To clarify, in 2106.05(d)(II): “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;… iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
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
Claims 8-9 are further limiting the mere data gathering of claim 6 and reciting another mere data gathering step of “scanning…” wherein these are considered WURC in view of “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), as well as ¶¶ 39-41 of the instant disclosure including: “Faceted models are becoming increasingly common. They arise from many different sources, often as a result of some sort of scanning process. As the quality of scanners is improving rapidly, and prices are dropping, so scanning is becoming a much more common practice, for example a faceted model may be obtained from a scan of a design originally made as a physical model in wood, or clay, or wax…”, also see previously cited Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, § 1 ¶ 3 including: “A lot of research on RE technology has been carried out and the RE technology has been widely applied in many fields. Currently, there are two approaches that can provide the geometric model of the final part. One is to use the CAD model of the damaged part, which is required the assumption that a normal CAD model of the damaged part is available. The other is to construct the geometric model of the final part based on the point cloud information sampled from the damaged part.” and § 2.1 ¶ 3 including: “Recently, the development of the reverse engineering technology provides a feasible solution to the issue [4]. The non-contact optical measurement system can acquire accurate 3D cloud data from the damaged part surface. The cloud data can be converted to a set of triangular meshes, which forms the geometrical boundary of the damaged region” and § 2.2 # 1; also see previously cited Wypysinski, “Hybrid modeling in CAD”, page 17 ¶ 1: “The last type of 3D shape representation in CAD software is cloud point (and mesh based on it}. it is basically a set of points in 3D space (in STL file points are connected via triangle/polygons mesh), as result of 3D scanning (fig. 4) or 30 measurement on CMM.”; Previously cited Ferrari et al., “An extended B-Rep solid modeling kernel integrating mesh and NURBS faces”, 2018, see § 1 including ¶¶ 3-5 including: “Polygonal models could be the result of a conversion of an analytical model, an acquisition process through 3D scanners, the extraction of the external boundary of voxel—based representations, such as tomography applications, virtual sculpturing systems and topological optimization software.” And see figure 1, also see page 699, col. 2, ¶ 2; also see Previously cited Pernot et al., “HYBRID MODELS DEFORMATION TOOL FOR FREE-FORM SHAPES MANIPULATION”, 2008, page 2, col. 1, ¶ 1; also see Previously cited Botsch et al., “Geometric Modeling Based on Polygonal Meshes”, 2007, § 1 ¶ 1, then see § 4.3, also see page 765, ¶ 2; also see previously cited Besl et al., “Hybrid Modeling for Manufacturing using NURBS, Polygons, and 3D Scanner Data”, 1998 abstract, and § 1 including ¶¶ 1 and 5
Claims 19, 22-23 are rejected under a similar rationale. With respect to the facets in claim 23, the Examiner notes that this is considered WURC in view of the above discussed evidence for claims 8-9, and further see the evidence discussed below for claim 10
In addition, the Examiner notes Appeal 2024-000206 considered similar limitations. See pages 12-14. See the instant disclosure, ¶ 8, also see ¶¶ 60-61, and see the above citations under the WURC consideration for a similar fact pattern as was discussed expressly in the ‘206 Appeal.
Claim 10 is an insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data as well as mere parts of the instructions to do it on a computer and use a computer in its ordinary capacity, wherein this is considered WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “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” as well as ¶¶ 39-41 of the instant specification including: “Faceted models are becoming increasingly common. They arise from many different sources, often as a result of some sort of scanning process. As the quality of scanners is improving rapidly, and prices are dropping, so scanning is becoming a much more common practice, for example a faceted model may be obtained from a scan of a design originally made as a physical model in wood, or clay, or wax…”, also see previously cited Zhang et al., § 3.1 ¶ 1: “Currently, the triangle mesh model is usually exchanged by the STL file format. However, the content of an STL file is only a set of oriented triangles [example of facets]…”
Claim 11 is considered as 1) part of the mere instructions to apply a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, 2) part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, and 3) generally linking to a particular technological environment akin to Electric Power Group as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h), wherein this is WURC in view of the instant disclosure ¶¶ 39-40, as well as the above discussed WURC evidence for claim 6 including:
Previously cited Pan et al., “Computer-aided design-while-engineering technology in top-down modeling of mechanical product”, 2016, abstract, then see § 1 including ¶¶ 1-3 including: “With the development of the technique in modern CAD and CAE system, simulation activities are integrated with the CAD modeling environment in several high-end commercial CAD software, i.e., NX software and Dassault system”, also see § 2.1 and § 3 ¶¶ 1-2
Previously cited Xia et al., “A CAD/CAE incorporate software framework using a unified representation architecture”, 2015, § 6 ¶ 1: “Performance analysis processes of modern engineering product design often rely on high-performance workstation computer and complex computer-aided simulations to evaluate candidate designs.”
Previously cited Hamri et al., “Software environment for CAD/CAE integration”, 2010, see §1 including: “…This configuration is originated by the fact that most frequently, simulation software is not integrated with the CAD software environment. Hence, a model exchange is necessary and engineers in this process have different skills: design and engineering if they use CAD and FE simulation otherwise….” And § 2 including ¶ 1
Claim 12 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 10, wherein claim 12 is considered WURC in view of the above discussed evidence for both claims 10-11, including MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “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”
Claim 18 is rejected under a similar rationale
Claim 14 is rejected mere instructions to “apply it” and a token post-solution activity akin to the cutting of hair with scissors of In re Brown as disucsssed in MPEP 2106.05(f and g) wherein this is WURC in view of ¶ 56 of the instant specification: “conventional body in white (BIW) development is illustrated in Fig.12 …producing a physical model… Revision of the physical model”; as clarified in ¶ 31: “Figure 12 is a flow diagram of a conventional process”; and as also clarified in ¶¶ 41-43; Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, abstract: “The accurate additive manufacturing technology provides an effective and efficient means for remanufacturing or repairing high value and damaged engineering components” and § 1 ¶ 1: “In recent years, the rapid development of the digital laser sampling and cladding technology, such as laser-based Direct Metal Deposition (DMD) technology, provides a new solution for remanufacturing or repairing the damaged parts. In the DMD process, the path traced by the laser beam is regulated through Computer Numeric Controls (CNC), so a reference geometric model of the defective region must be available [1]. The geometric modelling of the damaged region lays the foundation for subsequent path planning of the laser cladding tool and machining tool”. For additional evidence, see previously cited Ferrari et al., “An extended B-Rep solid modeling kernel integrating mesh and NURBS faces”, 2018, page 698, col. 1, ¶ 1: “Finally, in the emerging field of the Additive Manufacturing (AM), topological optimization is an effective way to design parts minimizing material consumption and then part weight”
Also, see AutoCAD2k10, Youtube Video: “3d printing (AutoCAD 2010)”, Mar. 17th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=Om3pCkRqid4 – AutoCAD software, in view of this evidence and the other YouTube videos produced above, had many of the modeling features presently claimed, e.g. in this video: “0:00 - 3D printing functionality is integrated 0:02 - into AutoCAD 2010 with dramatically 0:04 - improved output for stereo lithography 0:07 - files and easy access to 3D printing 0:10 - services produce STL files using the 0:13 - traditional STL out or export commands 0:15 - as well as the new 3D print command all 0:18 - of these methods for producing STL files”
Siemens, “Parasolid”, 2011 – see page 10, ¶ 4: “Manufacturing. Parasolid delivers comprehensive modeling capabilities for tapering, blending, thickening, outlining and identification that support a wide range of manufacturing processes, including 3D machining, molding, casting, turning and numerical control (NC) toolpath generation. Parasolid also is an ideal platform for exchanging solid models across manufacturing supply chains, including sharing models with bundled CNC and inspection/metrology applications.“ as well as page 3, ¶ 2; page 5 ¶ 1; page 6, ¶ 2; also see previously cited Besl et al., “Hybrid Modeling for Manufacturing using NURBS, Polygons, and 3D Scanner Data”, 1998 abstract, and § 1 including ¶ 1.
For additional evidence, see previously cited Ferrari et al., “An extended B-Rep solid modeling kernel integrating mesh and NURBS faces”, 2018, page 698, col. 1, ¶ 1: “Finally, in the emerging field of the Additive Manufacturing (AM), topological optimization is an effective way to design parts minimizing material consumption and then part weight”
Claim 17 is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is similar to “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). In addition, the Examiner notes that the use of a “display” as recited in the claim is considered as a generic computer component used it’s in ordinary manner as part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information
In addition, this is also considered as a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity similar to “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics,” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), as well as Example 46 of Appendix I of the Oct. 2019 PEG, see the discussion of claim 6 including: “Similarly, limitation (c) is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and displaying data is also well-known.” In the step 2B analysis
Claim 21 is rejected under a similar rationale as the propagating step recited in the independent claims. To clarify, claim 21 is considered as 1) mere instructions to apply a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea as this is merely propagating data (akin to “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit [examples of propagating] data)” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)), 2) mere instructions to “apply it” as this is a purely functional limitation with no restriction on how the propagating is performed “without any format conversion”, i.e. this does not recite how the propagation is performed in a manner that would be “without any format conversion”, but rather functionally claiming a solution to a problem with no particular details on how this solution is achieved (to clarify on the problem, see ¶ 43 of the instant disclosure; also see MPEP § 2106.05(f): “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"))”), and 3) as a mere data gathering/data transmission step which is an insignificant extra-solution activity, wherein this is also WURC in view of the evidence discussed above with respect to the propagating limitation of claim 6, including in view of 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” and the additional evidence discussed above
Claim 24 is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 22-23 above, including the WURC evidence discussed above for claims 10 and 8-9
Claim 25 is considered as both generally linking to a particular technological environment with the recitation of “wherein the mesh data and the classic geometry representation are distinct from one another such that the one or more mesh regions are different regions with different surfaces of the product than the one or more classic geometry regions;”, akin to “vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” and as part of the mere data gathering by specifying what data is to be gathered, wherein this is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above with respect to the independent claims, wherein the negative limitation of “wherein the method excludes a surfacing step of conversion between data formats of the mesh data and the geometric representation” is considered as 1) generally linking to a particular technological environment which does not have such a conversion, 2) mere instructions to “apply it” because this is a purely functional, results-oriented limitation to exclude a conversion in the “conventional” method as discussed in ¶¶ 56-57 of the instant disclosure, wherein this claim has no restriction on how this result is achieved (To clarify, see MPEP § 2106.05(f): “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"))”), and 3) mere instructions to apply a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea as this is merely excluding a computer from performing a step of converting data.
Claim 26 recites a “scanning…” step that is rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above with respect to claims 8-9, 19, and 22-24;, followed by a step of “modelling…” which is a mental process step such as a person mentally observing a prototype of a product, or mentally observing a mental visualization of a product they wish to design, and making mental judgments about the design of the product, wherein this may be aided by pen and paper drawings, or by using pen and paper to perform simple calculations, e.g. modeling a bucket as a cylinder, with simple equations representing the geometry of a cylinder, as discussed above with respect to the independent claims. Should it be found that this step is not a mental step, then this would be rejected under a similar rationale as the “deriving a classic geometric representation…” step in the independent claims, i.e. as a mere data gathering step that is WURC in view of the evidence discussed above for the independent claims. This step being limited to a particular geometry is considered as both part of the mere data gathering, as well as generally linking to a particular technological environment akin to “…iii. Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199;…vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
Claim 26 of the “wherein the offsetting…” is rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above for the offsetting recited in the independent claims
Claim 27 is further limiting the abstract idea of both the math concept and the mental process of “…determining the relationship…” wherein claim 27 merely adds specific details, with more particularity, the geometry that the relationship is established between – as such, it still may be reasonably performed mentally in a manner similar to what was discussed above for the independent claims, and is also still a geometrical mathematical relation for a similar rationale as discussed above for the independent claims. The recitation of “propagating…” is rejected under a similar rationale as claim 21 as discussed above.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 10-12, 15, 17-18, 20-21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012
Regarding Claim 6
Liepa teaches:
A method of modelling a three-dimensional (3D) product implemented on a data processing system, the method comprising:(Liepa, ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination). For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile or the side of a shoe. In another example, a semi-soft rubber disc may be wrapped around a cylindrical surface.”; and see ¶ 30: “One or more embodiments of the invention are implemented by a computer-implemented program 108 (or multiple programs 108).” – also, see ¶ ¶¶ 29-34 to further clarify)
obtaining, by a processor of the data processing system, first data relating to one or more first regions of the 3D product in a first format, wherein the first format comprises mesh data; obtaining, by the processor, a second data relating to one or more second regions of the 3D product in a second format. wherein the second format comprises classic geometry data;
(Liepa, ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination)…”
as to the classic geometric representation, see Liepa, ¶ 41: “To begin use of the Conform Rig tool, the user first selects the geometry to be modified, or conformed at step 302. Such geometry is referred to as a detail model and can be a spline surface (including NURBS [Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline] and Bezier surfaces)...” – this is an example of a derived classical geometric representation of one or more regions of a product – e.g. see figure 4 of Liepa # 402 which gives an example detail model with curved surfaces
as to the mesh data, Liepa, ¶ 43: “The destination surface can be a spline surface (including NURBS [Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline] and Bezier surfaces), subdivision surface, implicit surface, algebraic surface, procedural surface, mesh surface, boundary surface ( of a solid or volume), curve, multiple surfaces, collections of contiguous surfaces, and any other surface(s) or curve(s). All such surface(s) can be tessellated (e.g., the tessellation of a mesh is the mesh itself).” as taken in view of Liepa ¶ 14: “In one of more embodiments of the invention, the destination surface is tessellated into a mesh, then the mesh is flattened using known techniques that optimize shape preservation. This flattening defines a mapping from the reference plane (and its ambient space) back to the destination surface (and its ambient space). The mapping is defined from the flattened triangles to the triangles of the destination surface tessellation, and then as a projection ( or a closest point determination) from the tessellation triangles to the destination surface.” - to clarify on the BRI, ¶ 42 of the instant specification: “For the purpose of this description, the term facet is a triangular region of a plane and a mesh is a connected collection of facets; a classic geometric representation is a geometric representation based on curved surfaces.”
applying, by the processor, a modelling operation comprising establishing a relationship between the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the 3D product and an outer surface of a second region of the one or more second regions of the 3D product, (Liepa, ¶ 43: “The destination is the geometry onto which the detail models are to be mapped. Once a destination has been selected, the user may be prompted to accept the conform destination or to finalize the conform operation. In the case of the destination being a surface curve or a surface point, the detail model will still be mapped onto the surface to which these entities belong.” – as clarified in ¶ 44: “Once the user has elected to proceed, the Conform operation [example of a modeling operation] takes the detail model geometry and, as if it was a thick stamp, applies it onto the destination surface at step 308.” – as such, a relationship was established between the detail model [the classic geometry region] and the destination [a mesh region] for applying the conform operation
then see Liepa, ¶ 46: “In FIG. 4, the detail model 402 is the round feature on the right and the destination 404 is the half-cylinder surface on the left” and see figure 4, to clarify, see ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model [the classic geometric representation]) onto another object (referred to as a destination [the mesh data]). For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile or the side of a shoe. In another example, a semi-soft rubber disc may be wrapped around a cylindrical surface”;
As taken in view of ¶ 43 of Liepa: “At step 306, one or more surfaces, or a single mesh, or a single curve on any surface (isoparms, trim boundaries, curves-on-surface, trim mesh, patch precision lines), or a locator point on a surface is selected as the destination” to clarify ¶ 62: “In this regard, the destination 404 surface may be obtained in response to the user selecting the destination at step 306 of FIG. 3.”)
i.e. the detail model such as # 402 in figure 4 included an outer surface of the classic geometry region, and the mapping/relation is established between the outer surface of the classic geometry model/detail model, and the destination surface shown. Then see Liepa ¶ 7 “…place and display one object…onto another object …For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile or the side of a shoe.” – while Liepa does not give any examples where the destination surface is an inner surface of the first mesh region of the destination model, as Liepa’s examples show that the destination surface is an outer surface, a skilled person would have been suggested, or at least found it obvious, to have selected an inner surface instead of an outer surface, e.g. the company logo goes onto the interior of the show, such as on the padding on the bottom, or the company logo goes on the inside of the front hood, wherein POSITA would have found this obvious because this would have been a simple re-arrangement of parts as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), akin to the “…shifting the position of the starting switch…” as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) because this act would have simply been shifting where the company logo was placed, with no modification to the operation of the shoe or front hood of the car, and this would have been predictable, especially given that in Liepa the user selects the destination surface (Liepa, ¶ 43). In addition, the Examiner notes that a skilled person would have also found this obvious because this would have been a “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” as discussed in MPEP § 2143 (I)(B), as this would simply be substituting which destination surface was selected on 3D objects such as a “shoe” or a “car”, wherein a user of Liepa’s system would have been able to do this substitution as the surface is selected by the user (Liepa, as discussed above)
Then see Liepa, ¶ 67: “In other words, the mapping proceeds from the detail model to the flattened destination 404 version to the curved destination 404 version, to the original destination 404 surface. Such a reverse mapping is enabled based on the mappings ( e.g., the generation of the new parameterization 1004 may result in the use of a mapping to/from the tessellated destination surface from/to the flattened tessellated destination surface) ( e.g., the tessellated destination surface may produce/result in a mapping to/from the mesh representation from/to the original destination surface) obtained during the steps 1002 and 1004” – there are established relationships because there is a mapping which relates the “
there are multiple relationships/”mappings” that were derived between the detail model and the destination surface “detail model…to the original destination surface”, as clarified in ¶ 70: “Thus, rather than merely mapping the detail model 402 to a mesh representation of the destination 404, embodiments of the present invention map the detail model 402 to the actual original destination 404” wherein as per ¶ 43: “At step 306, one or more surfaces, or a single mesh, or a single curve on any surface (isoparms, trim boundaries, curves-on-surface, trim mesh, patch precision lines), or a locator point on a surface is selected as the destination.”
wherein the mesh data of the inner surface of the first region of the one or more first regions of the product is used directly without conversion of the mesh data the classic geometry data; (Liepa, as discussed above, including ¶¶ 67 and 70: ““Thus, rather than merely mapping the detail model 402 to a mesh representation of the destination 404, embodiments of the present invention map the detail model 402 to the actual original destination 404” wherein as per ¶ 43: “At step 306, one or more surfaces, or a single mesh, or a single curve on any surface (isoparms, trim boundaries, curves-on-surface, trim mesh, patch precision lines), or a locator point on a surface is selected as the destination.” – in particular, note that this is the “original destination” – i.e. the mesh data of the original destination is not converted to another data format, but remains in its “original” form.)
developing, by the processor, structural body parts or tooling for manufacture based on the established relationship; (Liepa, ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination). For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile [an example of a structural body part] or the side of a shoe.” – wherein this would have been done by Liepa’s relationship as described in ¶¶ 43-44 as cited above)
supplying, by the processor, updated data for one of the one or more first regions or one of the one or more second regions of the 3D product; propagating, by the processor, the updated data for the one of the one or more first regions to one of the second regions or propagating the updated data for the one of the one or more second regions to one of the one or more first regions, regardless of data format, based on the established relationship;
(Liepa, ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404 [the derived/established relationship], the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).” - the modifying the destination surface [example of updated data for a second region] results in propagating those changes to the conformed detail models, i.e. “the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update…” – which is an example of propagating updated data for a second region to one of the first regions
To further clarify on the regardless of data form, also see the above citations for the “without conversion of the mesh data” feature)
and displaying, by a display of the data processing system or storing in a store of the data processing system, a representation of the modelled 3D product.
(Liepa, as cited above, e.g. Liepa, ¶¶ 48, 51, 70: “In addition, steps 1002-1006 may be performed dynamically and interactively in real time as the detail model 402 is manipulated with respect to the surface (e.g., as described above in the user interface).”, fig. 4-9) and see ¶ 30 for the storage; see ¶ 34 to clarify
While Liepa does not explicitly teach the following, Liepa in view of Matt teaches:
applying, by the processor, an offsetting operation directly to a connected collection of facets of the first data, wherein the offsetting operation generates an inner surface of a first region of the one or more first regions, and wherein the offsetting operation is applied to the connected collection of facets of the mesh data without any conversion of the connected collection of facets to the classic geometry data; (Liepa, ¶ 60 as discussed above, as well as ¶¶ 41-43 for models include being “mesh” models as discussed in detail above and the other citations for applying a modeling operation via the mapping of Liepa to avoid the conversion
as taken in further view of Matt, ¶¶ 1-2 including: “I’m taking the Offset and Shell to be roughly the same thing for the purposes of this discussion…” then ¶ 11: “And then finally, we get to stuff like what is shown on the right. This was scanned in, and then the point cloud was surfaced over badly, and my job was to shell it. Obviously, the Shell feature didn’t work for this. This was shelled manually by offsetting the outer surface to the inside, trimming out some undercuts, then creating a solid from the original, offsetting a sketch to the inside of the back of the solid block, and cutting up to the offset and trimmed surface. Ugly, and certainly not exact, but it worked, and they are casting parts now.”, as to doing this automatically this would have been obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04(III): “AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY” as it would have simply been automating what Matt manually did, wherein POSITA would have found it obvious to do so such as with the computer of Liepa and/or Matt because this would be faster then waiting for a user to provide the inputs
then note the comment by Kevin Quigley on Jan. 11th, 2012: “Cadjunkie has a great demo video of tysElements where he models a toy car in Modo and shows this offset mesh trick into SolidWorks via TsElements… This is why I think the future is a combination of mesh and nurbs” – which suggests, in the context of systems such as Liepa with “a combination of mesh and nurbs”, to do an “offset mesh trick”, i.e. on mesh data, in the same manner that Matt did it on NURBs data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa on a system to “solve the problem of creating a copy of the detail model that conforms to a curved destination Surface yet retains the original detail model proportions.” (Liepa, ¶ 79) with the teachings from Matt on Matt on using “offsetting” to achieve the effects of shelling. The motivation to combine would have been that “Obviously, the Shell feature didn’t work for this…. Ugly, and certainly not exact, but it worked, and they are casting parts now.” (Matt, ¶ 11).
Regarding Claim 10.
Liepa teaches: The method according to claim 6, further comprising: storing the first data in the store of the data processing system as the connected collection of facets. (Liepa, see ¶ 30: “Generally, the program 108 comprises logic and/or data tangibly embodied in or readable from a device, media, carrier, signal, or computer-readable medium, e.g., data storage device 104, which could include one or more fixed and/or removable data storage devices 104, such as a zip drive, floppy disc drive, hard drive, CD-ROM drive, tape drive, etc. connected directly or indirectly to the computer 100, one or more remote devices coupled to the computer 100 via a data communications device, etc.” – as such, a skilled person would have inferred that the mesh data of Liepa was stored – to clarify, see Liepa as was cited above for the mesh data including ¶¶ 14 and 43, and to clarify on the BRI see ¶ 42 of the instant specification)
Regarding Claim 11.
Liepa teaches:
The method according to The method according to wherein the second data is obtained by simulation in the data processing system. (Liepa, ¶¶ 41-42: “To begin use of the Conform Rig tool, the user first selects the geometry to be modified, or conformed at step 302. Such geometry is referred to as a detail model and can be a spline surface (including NURBS [Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline] and Bezier surfaces)... Once the tool has been selected, the detail model geometry may be accepted and highlighted in some manner ( e.g., displayed in a pale green [ or other color] highlight).”, as taken in view of ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination).” – see ¶¶ 38-40 to clarify including ¶ 38: “As described above, graphics program 108 may comprise a 3D modeling, animation, effects, and/or rendering application (referred to herein collectively as a graphics program 108). Graphics program 108 may be configured to cause a computer to display certain objects and/or renderings on a display device.” – as such, the detail model was derived by simulation because it was modelled
To clarify on the BRI of simulation, see ¶ 13 of the instant specification, as well as ¶ 39: “Traditional CAD models are composed of faces, which are sewn together along shared edges. A face is just a region of a larger surface, on which it lies. Many types of surfaces are used. The most common ones are quadric surfaces, for example cylinders and cones, and the most complex are free-form non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS) surfaces.” – e.g. Liepa’s “NURBS” model in ¶ 41
Regarding Claim 12.
Liepa teaches: The method according to claim 11, further comprising: storing the second data of the modelled product in the store of the data processing system. (Liepa, see ¶ 30: “Generally, the program 108 comprises logic and/or data tangibly embodied in or readable from a device, media, carrier, signal, or computer-readable medium, e.g., data storage device 104, which could include one or more fixed and/or removable data storage devices 104, such as a zip drive, floppy disc drive, hard drive, CD-ROM drive, tape drive, etc. connected directly or indirectly to the computer 100, one or more remote devices coupled to the computer 100 via a data communications device, etc.” – as such, a skilled person would have inferred that the classic geometric representation was also stored as part of the data embodiment in a storage device)
Regarding Claim 15
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 6 as discussed above, wherein Liepa teaches:
A data processing system comprising: a store; a display; and at least a processor and accessible memory, comprising wherein the processor and the accessible memory are configured to: (Rejected under a similar rationale as the preamble in claim 6 as discussed above)
obtain mesh data relating to one or more first regions of a three-dimensional (3D) product and designate the one or more first regions as one or more mesh regions, wherein the mesh data comprises a connected collection of facets; obtain a classic geometric representation of one or more second regions of the product and designate the one or more second regions as one or more classic geometry regions, wherein the classic geometry representation comprises curved surfaces, and wherein the one or more mesh regions and the one or more classic geometry regions are distinct from one another; (Rejected under a similar rationale as the similar limitation in claim 6 as discussed above)
…
establish a relationship between the first mesh region of the one or more mesh regions and a first classic geometry region of the one or more classic geometry regions comprising deriving the established relationship between the inner surface of the first mesh region and an outer surface of the first classic geometry region, wherein the mesh data of the inner surface of the first mesh region is used directly in establishing the relationship without conversion of the mesh data the classic geometry representation; (Rejected under a similar rationale as the similar limitation in claim 6 as discussed above, that was nested in the applying a modeling operation)
…
and propagate the updated data, regardless of data format, based on the established relationship, (Rejected under a similar rationale as the similar limitation in claim 6 as discussed above)
Regarding Claim 17.
Liepa teaches:
The data processing system according to claim 15, wherein the display is further configured to display the classic geometric representation of the one or more classic geometry regions.. (Liepa, ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model [the classic geometric representation]) onto another object (referred to as a destination [the mesh data]).” – to clarify, ¶ 38: “Graphics program 108 may be configured to cause a computer to display certain objects and/or renderings on a display device.”, e.g. figure 4 of Liepa)
Regarding Claim 18.
Liepa teaches:
The data processing system according to claim 15, wherein the store is further configured to store the classic geometric representation of the one or more classic geometry regions.. (Liepa, see ¶ 30: “Generally, the program 108 comprises logic and/or data tangibly embodied in or readable from a device, media, carrier, signal, or computer-readable medium, e.g., data storage device 104, which could include one or more fixed and/or removable data storage devices 104, such as a zip drive, floppy disc drive, hard drive, CD-ROM drive, tape drive, etc. connected directly or indirectly to the computer 100, one or more remote devices coupled to the computer 100 via a data communications device, etc.” – as such, a skilled person would have inferred that the classic geometric representation was also stored as part of the data embodiment in a storage device)
Regarding Claim 20.
Claim 20 is rejected under a similar rationale as claims 6 and 15 above, wherein Liepa teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more data processing systems to: (Liepa, ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination). For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile or the side of a shoe. In another example, a semi-soft rubber disc may be wrapped around a cylindrical surface.”; and see ¶ 30: “One or more embodiments of the invention are implemented by a computer-implemented program 108 (or multiple programs 108).”)
Regarding Claim 21.
Liepa teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the propagating comprises propagating the updated data for the first data of the one of the one or more first regions representing an outer surface of the 3D product throughout the structural body parts or tooling represented by one of the one or more second regions without format conversion. (Liepa, ¶¶ 43, 67, and 70 as discussed above; then 7, 43-44, 79, and 60 as discussed above, including in Liepa, ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404 [the derived/established relationship], the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 surface [the mesh data] in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).”
Wherein there is an obvious distinction of an obvious variant, i.e. this claim requires now that the second regions (the classic geometry regions; mapped above to the detail model) to represent the structural body parts or tooling (instant disclosure, ¶ 11), whereas Liepa as relied upon above teaches, in ¶ 7: “For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile [an example of a structural body part] or the side of a shoe” – however, POSITA would have found it obvious to have changed out the data for a “company logo” to be applied to an automobile’s front hood for other parts, e.g. structural body parts, e.g. a mechanical arm configured for holding the hood in either an open or closed position, the hook on the front of the hood for locking the hood closed, etc. – the only distinction is what the detail model is representing, and in the system of Liepa this is decided based on what the user inputs as the “object” (¶ 7) for the detail model - ¶ 41: “To begin use of the Conform Rig tool, the user first selects the geometry to be modified, or conformed at step 302.”, thus the present limitation is an obvious variant of what Liepa teaches, requiring simply that the user, in using Liepa’s system, merely changes what “object” of the detail model is. Also, such an obvious variant would have been a “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;” as discussed in MPEP § 2143 – i.e. simply substituting what data is input/selected by the user, which in Liepa merely depends on what the user inputs/selects through Liepa’s user interface (¶ 41).
As a point of clarity, Liepa does teach that it may be a “3D detail model (i.e., geometry)” (¶ 11)
Regarding Claim 25.
Liepa teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the first data and the second data are distinct from one another such that the one or more first regions are different regions with different surfaces of the 3D product than the one or more second regions; (Liepa, as discussed above with respect to the detail model and destination surface for claim 6, i.e. the mesh data is the destination surface of Liepa, which is distinct from the detail model, e.g. Liepa, fig. 4-9 and ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination). For example, a company logo may be copied
or placed onto the front hood of an automobile or the side of a shoe.”)
and wherein the method excludes a surfacing step of conversion between data formats of the mesh data and the classic geometry data. (To clarify on the BRI of this, ¶ 41 of the instant disclosure: “This is because, if a faceted model was to be used, then a "surfacing" step was required in which point clouds or faceted objects are converted into traditional CAD models with curved surfaces.” – then Liepa, ¶ 67: “In other words, the mapping proceeds from the detail model to the flattened destination 404 version to the curved destination 404 version, to the original destination 404 surface.” , ¶ 79: “In summary, given a three dimensional detail model that is defined over a reference plane, embodiments of the invention solve the problem of creating a copy of the detail model that conforms to a curved destination surface yet retains the original detail model proportions”, and ¶ 60: “In addition, after a detail model 402 has been conformed to a destination 404, the user can proceed to modify the destination 404 surface in any way, and the conformed detail models 402 may dynamically and automatically (and without user input) update based on a construction history of the conformation operation. The user may also modify the input detail model 402 geometry and the conformed detail models 402 may update accordingly (e.g., dynamically and without user input).” And ¶ 66: “step 1006 may be viewed as a process wherein the detail model 402 is overlayed onto the flattened mesh and for every point of the detail model surface 402 ( e.g., each point of the detail model 402 may be mapped to a point of the destination surface which may be a point on or in the vicinity of the destination surface),” - and ¶¶ 41: “Such geometry is referred to as a detail model and can be a spline surface (including NURBS [Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline] and Bezier surfaces” and 43: “At step 306, one or more surfaces, or a single mesh, or a single curve on any surface (isoparms, trim boundaries, curves-on-surface, trim mesh, patch precision lines…”
i.e. in Liepa, the detail model remains in its original form such as “NURBS”, without being converted to a mesh, and the mesh data remains mesh data)
Claim(s) 8-9, 14, 19, 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012 in further Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, 2015
Regarding Claim 8
While Liepa, in view of Matt, does not explicitly teach the following, Liepa, in view of Matt and Zhang teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the first data is obtained from a physical sample of the 3D product. (Liepa, as discussed above in view of Matt, then see Zhang, see figure 2 including for the “Digitization of the damaged part” which results in a “STL mesh model” from “Scanning” a product, as clarified in § 2.2 # 1: “In this paper, we use the RE technology to obtain the digitized geometric model of the damaged part. Non-contact sensing techniques are used to acquire the sampled point clouds, and then the acquired point clouds are converted into a set of triangular meshes through registration, removing noise, triangulation, etc. Finally, the mesh model of the damaged part is output in the STL (Stereo Lithography) file format”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa on “A method, apparatus, and article of manufacture provide the ability to map a detail model to a destination while preserving the shape of the detail model” (Liepa, abstract) with the teachings from Zhang on “…additive manufacturing technology…” which uses a “geometric model” (Zhang, abstract). The motivation to combine would have been that “The accurate additive manufacturing technology provides an effective and efficient means for remanufacturing or repairing high value and damaged engineering components”
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Liepa on “A method, apparatus, and article of manufacture provide the ability to map a detail model to a destination while preserving the shape of the detail model” (Liepa, abstract) with the teachings from Zhang on “…Important work to implement this technology is to construct the geometric model of the damaged or worn region, which lays the foundation for the computation of the tool path and the virtual digit repair...” (Zhang, abstract, see § 2.1 ¶ 2 to clarify as well as figure 2 and § 2.2)
The motivation to combine would have been that “…Recently, the development of the reverse engineering technology provides a feasible solution to the issue [4]… The cloud data can be converted to a set of triangular meshes, which forms the geometrical boundary of the damaged region. On the other hand, the CAD solid model of the damaged part represents the design requirements for the geometry and topology of the defect-free part. In addition, the CAD model of the damaged part is usually available” (Zhang, § 2.1, ¶ 1) – i.e. Zhang would have provided a technique to obtain a mesh model from “scanning” (fig. 2) as while the “CAD model…is usually available”, the mesh model may not be “available” without such “Digitization” (fig. 2).
An additional motivation to combine would have been that “This method can avoid reconstructing the scanned mesh surface so the efficiency and accuracy of geometric modelling gets a lot of improving.” (Zhang, § 5 ¶ 1).
Regarding Claim 9
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 14.
While Liepa, in view of Matt, does not explicitly teach the following, Liepa, in view of Matt and Zhang teaches:
The method according to claim 6, further comprising:
generating manufacturing instructions for the updated structural body parts or the tooling for the modelled product. (Liepa, as discussed above, including ¶ 7: “In 3D modeling, animation, effects, and rendering applications, it is desirable to place and display one object (referred to as a detail model) onto another object (referred to as a destination). For example, a company logo may be copied or placed onto the front hood of an automobile or the side of a shoe. In another example, a semi-soft rubber disc may be wrapped around a cylindrical surface.”
As taken in view of Zhang, abstract: “The accurate additive manufacturing technology provides an effective and efficient means for remanufacturing or repairing high value and damaged engineering components. Important work to implement this technology is to construct the geometric model of the damaged or worn region, which lays the foundation for the computation of the tool path and the virtual digit repair [examples of manufacturing instructions]” – to clarify, Zhang, § 5 ¶ 1: “Repairing or remanufacturing damaged parts in high efficiency and high quality needs the geometric model of the damaged region in order to calculate the path of laser cladding and cutting tools. The digital acquisition technology based on reverse engineering provides a solution for constructing the geometric model…”
Wherein a skilled person would have been suggested by Zhang’s teachings to have manufactured the product based on the model, because this is the intended use of the model
The rationale to combine is the same as the one discussed above with respect to claim 8
Regarding Claim 19.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 22.
Liepa, in view of Matt and Zhang teaches:
The method according to claim 9, wherein the scanning of the physical sample comprises scanning an outer surface of the physical sample of the product to obtain the first data of the one or more first regions that represent an outer surface of the product. (Zhang, see figure 2 including for the "Digitization of the damaged part" which results in a "STL mesh model" from "Scanning" a product, as clarified in§ 2.2 # 1: "In this paper, we use the RE technology to obtain the digitized geometric model of the damaged part. Non-contact sensing techniques are used to acquire the sampled point clouds, and then the acquired point clouds are converted into a set of triangular meshes through registration, removing noise, triangulation, etc. Finally, the mesh model of the damaged part is output in the STL (Stereo Lithography) file format", wherein Zhang fig. 2 shows that the "STL mesh model" represents the outer surface of the product that was scanned, see Fig. 7 for further clarification )
The rationale to combine is the same as the one discussed above with respect to claim 8
Regarding Claim 23.
Liepa, in view of Matt and Zhang teaches:
The method according to claim 22, wherein the first data obtained from the scanning of the physical sample includes the connected collection of facets that are a collection of planar faces that represent the outer surface of the product. (Zhang, see figure 2 including for the “Digitization of the damaged part” which results in a “STL mesh model” from “Scanning” a product, as clarified in § 2.2 # 1: “In this paper, we use the RE technology to obtain the digitized geometric model of the damaged part. Non-contact sensing techniques are used to acquire the sampled point clouds, and then the acquired point clouds are converted into a set of triangular meshes through registration, removing noise, triangulation, etc. Finally, the mesh model of the damaged part is output in the STL (Stereo Lithography) file format”, wherein Zhang fig. 2 shows that the “STL mesh model” represents the outer surface of the product that was scanned, see Fig. 7 for further clarification, then see § 3.1: “Currently, the triangle mesh model is usually exchanged by the STL file format. However, the content of an STL file is only a set of oriented triangles and does not contain any topological information like relations among vertexes, edges and facets. Hence, it is necessary for the STL data to be reconstructed the triangular mesh model. As considering the topological characteristic of the edge, we employ the improved winged-edge structure to describe the topological relationships between triangles and propose a new geometric representation for the triangular mesh as shown in Fig. 3.” And § 3.2.1: “the number of surfaces of the exact solid model is considerably less than the number of triangular facets in the mesh model,”)
The rationale to combine is the same as the one discussed above with respect to claim 8
Regarding Claim 24.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 23.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa et al., US 2008/0259077 in view of Matt, “Capabilities of the SolidWorks Shell Command”, 2012 in further view of Zhang et al., “Remanufacturing-oriented geometric modelling for the damaged region of components”, 2015 in further view of AutoCAD2k10, YouTube Video: “AutoCAD 2010 - New features (Mesh Modeler)”, May 12th, 2009, URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IpVZ_L72Hx0
Regarding Claim 26.
While Liepa, in view of Matt, does not explicitly teach the following, Liepa, in view of Matt and Zhang teaches:
The method according to claim 25, further comprising:
scanning, with a scanner, an outer surface of a physical sample of the product to obtain the first data of the one or more first regions that designate an outer surface of a shell of the product; (Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 8 above)
While Liepa, in view of Matt and Zhang, does not explicitly teach the following, Liepa, in view of Matt and Zhang, as well as in further view of AutoCAD2k10 teaches:
and modelling the one or more second regions that designate interior geometry of the product within the shell of the product such that the outer surface of the one or more second regions is an outer surface of the interior geometry of the product within the shell, wherein the connected collection of facets of the first data is obtained from the scanning, and wherein the offsetting operation generates the inner surface of the first region that designates an inner surface of the shell of the product. (Liepa, as was taken in view of Matt for the offset operation in the dependent claims, taken in further view of Zhang for the scanned data, taken in further view of AutoCAD2k10, see the video for the following transcript times: “3:00 - context as in this example this 3:02 - motorcycle was modeled 100% inside 3:05 - AutoCAD using mesh and solids another 3:08 - section will show that the converted 3:10 - mesh can allow any of the solid 3:12 - operations like in this case 3:14 - shell within a few hours a proficient 3:17 - user can come up with a model like this 3:20 - which would have taken an important 3:22 - amount of time before or would have just 3:24 - been impossible to create in…” wherein this shows the “converted mesh” was shelled with an offset to generate an interior surface, wherein this is part of a model (3:28) of a motorcycle, wherein depicted in the model the offset/shelling operation was used to generate a hollow space in the interior of the motorcycle, wherein there are other portions visually depicted of the model including outer portions, wherein the Examiner does note it stated “converted mesh”
To clarify on this rejection, the Examiner notes that while AutoCAD2k10, on its own, is teaching converting the mesh first to do the offsetting/shelling, the teaching of Matt as discussed above clarified that there is an equivalent “mesh offset trick” that works on mesh data
PNG
media_image1.png
965
1446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from modeling system of Liepa, Zhang, and Matt above with the teachings from AutoCAD2k10 on a similar such system wherein the modelled product is a motorcycle.
The rationale to combine is that this would have required only a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of what product was being modelled, i.e. to use Liepa’s system, as modified by Matt and Zhang above, on a model of a motorcycle such depicted in AutoCAD2k10.
Regarding Claim 27.
Liepa, in view of Matt and Zhang, as well as in further view of AutoCAD2k10 teaches:
The method according to claim 26, wherein the establishing of the relationship comprises determining the relationship between the inner surface of the shell of the product and the outer surface of the interior geometry of the product within the shells and wherein the propagating of the updated data includes propagating the updated data to the first data representing the inner surface of the shell of the product throughout the structural body parts or tooling including the outer surface of the interior geometry without format conversion. (Rejected above under a similar rationale as claims 1 and 26 for their similar recitations)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Datta, Ranadev, and C. Guedes Soares. "NURBS based scheme for automatic quadrilateral mesh generation for FE and BEM analysis." Marine Systems & Ocean Technology 7.1 (2012): 29-35. § 2.2, last two paragraphs, discussing how NURB surfaces are, by mathematical definition per equation 4, mapped to a “unit square” in R2 (two dimensional space), specifically note the “u” and “v” coordinates for this.
Dimitriou, V., A. Kanarachos, and D. Koulocheris. "An approach to unstructured finite element mesh generation using Coons mapping and smoothing techniques." WSEAS Transactions on Circuits and Systems 2 (2003): 473-478. § 2 discussing mapping to parametric (u, v) surfaces is mapping to “the unit square”, e.g. fig. 1, mathematically, and further describes in equations 2-3 a “Coons patch” calculation, wherein “Consequently, a line ui=const (rsp. vj=const) is mapped into a 3D Cartesian curve s(ui,v), (rsp. s(u,vj)) as it is presented in Fig. 1. This property is used for the production of finite element meshes.” Wherein it appears this is discussing the conventional generation of FEM meshes (§ 3 ¶¶ 1-2 and figures to contrast).
GOENKA, MOHIT. "Technique for Adaptive Mesh Generation." (2013). Mid-semester Interim B.Tech Report, Nov. 2013, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY in Kharagpur, India. See § 5.2: “One of the most commonly used Adaptive meshing techniques is Mapped element approach. This approach requires an object be subdivided manually into simple regions, each of which consists of three or four sides… Given a four sided region, a mesh can be induced in it by mapping a mesh template of the unit square in the parametric space to the region”
Grimm, Cindy M. "Parameterization using manifolds." International Journal of Shape Modeling 10.01 (2004): 51-81. Abstract and § 1 including: “There are many surface representations, such as meshes and implicit surfaces, that lack a “built-in” parameterization, such as the one provided by spline surfaces. The primary use of a surface parameterization in graphics is as a texture map. A parametric surface equation is also useful for calculating differential geometry entities such as geodesics and principal curvature. These metrics can then be used for applications such as feature extraction, shape classification, and comparisons of 3D objects. Parameterization is essentially the problem of flattening a surface (or piece of a surface) to the plane without folding or creasing it. This creates a mapping from the surface to the plane. Current approaches with meshes have focused on finding “nice” mappings that distribute distortions in well-behaved ways…” then see pages 5-6 paragraph split between the pages: “Several papers describe surface construction techniques using manifolds 15,16,35,36,31. Grimm’s approach 16 begins with a mesh and builds a manifold with one chart per mesh element. The approach in Navau and Garcia’s first paper 36 builds a manifold for a planar mesh by mapping the boundary of the mesh to the unit square. Charts and embedding functions can then be built on the unit square. We adopt this approach for planar meshes”
Ho-Le, K. "Finite element mesh generation methods: a review and classification." Computer-aided design 20.1 (1988): 27-38. Section “Mapped element approach” on page 3: “The mesh template is a rectangular mesh in the unit square (or a triangular mesh in a unit triangle) in the parametric space. It is mapped onto a four-sided (or three-sided) region to induce a mesh in the region via a blending function 23. An arbitrary object has to be subdivided manually into three- or four-sided regions, which are in effect macro elements (see Figure 13). This approach is the mainstay of existing commercial mesh generators.”
Hua, Tienyong, and Ibrahim Zeid. "A free-form mesh generator for three-dimensional surfaces." International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Vol. 97690. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1993. Abstract, § 2 ¶¶ 1-2: “Parametric surface representation is realized by using a continuous, vector-valued function P(u, v) of two parameters, ii and n. In most cases, u and v intervals are [0,1 ]. That makes the parametric surface maps into a unit square in the parametric space. The free-form surface mesh generation concept is described as follows. An analytic or synthetic surface can always's be transformed into its parametric space which is a two-dimensional space of u and v.” and see § 3.4, including its subsection “B-spline Surface”, noting B-splines are in the “u, v” parametric space as part of their definition (by equation)
Laug, P., and H. Borouchaki. "Interpolating and meshing 3d surface grids." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 58.2 (2003): 209-225. Pages 210-211, then see § 3.
Lee, Michael, and Hanan Samet. "Navigating through triangle meshes implemented as linear quadtrees." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 19.2 (2000): 79-121. Page 81, including: “Triangular meshes are not restricted to purely two-dimensional data. They are also useful in the modeling of data that lies on the surface of a sphere, as is the case, for example, in applications that involve modeling the earth (e.g., De Floriani et al. [1996]). Traditional ways of representing such data invariably resort to projections onto the plane (e.g., Tobler and Chen [1986]) using one of many possible projections (e.g., Snyder [1987]). Clearly, there is no perfect projection. Ideally, we would like the projection to facilitate a decomposition into units of equal area. The difficulty here is that units of equal area in the projection do not necessarily correspond to units of equal area on the surface of the sphere. For example, it would be ideal if the projection made use of the common concepts of latitudes and longitudes, as in the case of the Mercator projection (e.g., Snyder [1987]). Unfortunately, this leads to great distortion around the poles, thereby precluding the use of equally-spaced lines of latitude.”
Mounoury, Valérie, and Olivier Stab. "Automatic quadrilateral and hexahedral finite element mesh generation: review of existing methods." Revue européenne des éléments finis 4.1 (1995): 75-102. § 4.2, fig. 15 and: “Blaker uses various primitives as triangles, circles, semi-circles. But the other decomposition algorithms provide quadrilateral primitives. Most of the primitive meshing methods are based on mathematical transformations that allow to map a mesh template of a unit square (or a unit cube in 3D) onto a region with the same topology.”, followed by pages 95-96 incl.: “Chinnaswamy ([CHI 91]) uses an inverse transfinite mapping. A super-element, superimposed on a regular mesh of the domain, is mapped by an inverse transfinite mapping on a unit square. The external elements are removed ; those which intersect the square boundary are deformed or cut. Afterwards, the mesh is mapped again on the region. Figure 16 shows an example.”
Nguyen, Thien, and Bert Jüttler. "Parameterization of contractible domains using sequences of harmonic maps." International conference on curves and surfaces. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. Abstract and § I including: “To achieve that, our method creates a mapping from the domain to the unit square or unit cube, see Figure 1. The mapping should be regular or injective”
Peiró, Joaquim, Spencer J. Sherwin, and Sergio Giordana. "Automatic reconstruction of a patient-specific high-order surface representation and its application to mesh generation for CFD calculations." Medical & biological engineering & computing 46.11 (2008): 1069-1083. § 5, including # 3.
Provatidis, Christopher G. "CAD-FEA integration using Coons interpolation." ideas. Vol. 20. 2002. Abstract, and § 6 ¶¶ 1-4, and page 38 for fig. 3
Provatidis, C. G. "A review on attempts towards CAD/CAE integration using macroelements." Computational Research 1.3 (2013): 61-84. Abstract, then see § 2.1, then § 2.2.5.1, also see § 2.2.26 and its subsections including § 2.2.7. Then, see §§ 2.3.1.1 -2.3.1.2, then see § 2.3.1 including fig. 2.3.1
Weiss, Kenneth, and Leila De Floriani. "Sparse terrain pyramids." Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSPATIAL international conference on Advances in geographic information systems. 2008. § 3 and figure 1
Russel et al., US US 2003/0191554, fig. 5 and accompanying description, ¶¶ 120-132, including: “Projection is the inverse of texture mapping. Each node in the mesh of triangles has co-ordinates in the unit texture square given by its (x, y) coordinates relative to the XY extent of the mesh. The co-ordinates of any given point are transformed by an inverse of the texture transformation matrix to give a point in an output space of the TCG…”
Muller-Fischer et al., US 2007/0024620, figures 4 and accompanying description.
GIANNACOPOULOS et al., US 2015/0120261 ¶ 139: “Element merging in the FGaBP algorithm is demonstrated using a structured triangular mesh on a unit square domain. The Laplace equation is solved in the domain using zero Dirichlet on the boundary. The unit square is subdivided into equally spaced sub-squares where each square is further divided into two right triangles.”
University of Virginia Library, Article on “Lewis and Clark, The Maps of Exploration”, accessed Jan. 2026, URL: explore(dot)lib(dot)virginia.edu/exhibits/show/lewisclark/novusorbis/overview3. “Wright published “A Chart of the World on Mercator’s Projection” in 1600 based on his projection of a globe engraved by the English globe maker Emery Molyneux in 1592. It was the first map to use Wright’s improvements on Mercator’s projection. This map, sometimes called the “Wright-Molyneux Map,” also was published in The Principall Navigations, Voiages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation (London, 1598-1600), compiled by Richard Hakluyt.Considered a sixteenth-century cartographic landmark, the Wright-Molyneux Map is alluded to in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, when Maria says teasingly of Malvolio: “He does smile his face into more lynes, than is in the new Mappe, with the augmentation of the Indies…”
Merriam Webster Dictionary, Definition of “bijection”, accessed electronically Jan. 23rd, 2026, URL: merriam-webster(dot)com/dictionary/bijective: “a mathematical function that is a one-to-one and onto mapping”
Wolfram MathWorld, “Barycentric Coordinates”, Jan. 23rd 2026, URL: mathworld(dot)wolfram(dot)com/BarycentricCoordinates(dot)html
Ungar, Abraham Albert. "An introduction to hyperbolic barycentric coordinates and their applications." Mathematics Without Boundaries: Surveys in Interdisciplinary Research. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2014. 577-648
Yu, TzuYi, and Alan Shih. "Surface Reconstruction and Mesh Generation Using Reverse Engineering Approach." 43rd AIA A Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. 2005. §§ II-III, in particular § III tables 1-2 and ¶ 1: “For reverse engineering, there are many different type of scanner hardware available. They varies from optical scanning, laser scanning, to contact scanning. In this study, two types of scanners are utilized.”
Geomagic, User Guide, Nov. 2013, URL: engineering(dot)pitt(dot)edu/contentassets/52314f399aba40fa86709314a569641c/geomagicdesignx2014userguide(dot)pdf - for a user guide for commercially available software; then see § 1.1 ¶ 1: “Thank you for choosing Geomagic Design X, the most comprehensive 3D Scan-To-CAD Software Solution. 3D Systems, Inc. is the leader in providing technologies that make 3D scanning a powerful tool for a variety of applications including manufacturing, R&D, quality inspection, medical research, civil engineering and more, and is now presenting the future of 3D scanning software technology with its next generation 3D scan data processing platform, Geomagic. Geomagic Design X makes the process of creating parametric CAD models from real world parts faster and easier by utilizing a design process and user interface that are instantly familiar to CAD users.” Then, see the section on “True Hybrid Modeler” on page 11: “Geomagic Design X is a truly comprehensive 3D scan data processing application that offers parametric solid modeling capabilities, NURBS surfacing capabilities, and a hybrid modeling process that utilizes both capabilities for the creation of parametric CAD models that contain freeform features.” – as discussed further starting on page 47 in the section: “Reverse Modeling Process” including “The Reverse Modeling process is the process of creating an optimal 3D model from 3D scan data (Point Cloud or Mesh), that is generated during the Scan Data Processing phase. This process is the core of Reverse Design, where optimized mesh and 3D features, such as 3D curves, 3D surfaces, and 3D solid bodies, are created by using various modeling methods… The Mesh Modeling method creates an optimized mesh that contains important information by applying various geometric and mathematical operations. The Feature Modeling method creates 3D geometric feature shapes based on extracted design intent and elements from 3D scan data The Fitting Surface Modeling method creates fitted freeform surfaces on complex freeform feature shapes. The Hybrid Modeling method creates a complex feature model from 3D scan data by using the Feature Modeling method in conjunction with the Fitting Surface Modeling method” – then, see § 4.2 for more details, in particular its discussion of “Hybrid modeling”, including that it is “useful for designing a new product from a mock-up or clay model” then see §§ 4.2.2-4.2.3, in particular see “Surface fitting technology” note on page 71: “Surface Fitting Technology is a unique technique in the Reverse Design process that provides an effective way to easily and quickly create 3D freeform surface bodies from a freeform mesh shape. It creates surface patches by projecting uniform points within curve loops constructed on a freeform mesh shape, and fitting to the projected points. A 3D freeform surface body is created by connecting fitted surface patches. This technique is usually used for creating a highly accurate 3D freeform surface body from 3D scan data” [instant disclosure; ¶ 58: “As set out in more detail below, this disclosure addresses the problem by using a model which defines a new surface type to represent a mesh.”] – then, see § 4.2.4, including the figure for “Creating a complex 3D Model by using the Hybrid Modeling method” Also, note the discussion starting on page 26 of the 3D sketch, including: “3D Sketch uses spline curves which can be drawn anywhere (3D Sketch) in 3D space or drawn directly on a mesh (Mesh 3D Sketch). 3D Sketch is commonly used for the path of a loft or sweep body. 3D Mesh Sketch is mainly used for generating a curve network on a mesh. Then surfaces can be generated within the network boundaries.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188