DETAILED ACTION
Claims 17 - 20, 22, 24 – 26, 29 – 35 and 37 - 45 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 - 16, 21, 23, 27 – 28 and 36 are cancelled. Claims 39 – 45 are new. Claims 17, 32 – 33 and 37 are currently amended.
This office action is in response to the amendments dated 10/29/2025.
Examiner notes that claim 37 shows as previously presented, however, it is amended to depend from independent claim 33.
Rejection of Claims 17 to 20, 22, 24 to 27, and 29 to 38 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “While the Office Action contends that "'producing' amounts to reciting the idea of an outcome (i.e. a generic simulation) analogous to reciting the words 'apply it,"' the Office Action fails to establish, with substantial evidence support, that "producing" constitutes "mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer." See ,M.P.E.P. § 2105.05(f). In other word, the Office Action fails to adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claims, consistent with the Specification, but, instead, adopts an improperly and unreasonably broad interpretation of the claims.” (emphasis added)
Applicant mentions a contention in the Office Action regarding the amended “producing”. Examiner notes that this limitation was not previously recited, and there are no interviews of record during which this was proposed. This notwithstanding, the recited “producing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome using “the construction model of the object”. Applicant further argues that there is a failure to provide “substantial evidence support” with regard to said “producing”. Examiner notes that an analysis under “apply it” is not limited to applications on a general purpose computer, as apparently argued by applicant (see MPEP 2016.05(f)(iii) “Wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network without any details of how the delivery is accomplished”). Applicant then argues that the claims are interpreted too broadly, however, it is unclear how this is related to the previous arguments regarding a lack of evidentiary support to substantiate mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Further, Applicant has not specifically pointed out, either in view of the claims or the specification, in what manner whatsoever the recited “producing” is reasonably limited. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, and as previously explained, the Specification of the present application describes "improve[ments of] the functioning of the computer itself" or "other technology or technical field," sufficient to render the present claims patents eligible. For example, on page 4, lines 1 0 to 16, the Specification explains that "[s]ince the volume model defines only the outer edges and outer surfaces of the object but no inner structure, the memory requirement of the volume model is smaller than that of the construction model," such that "the volume model is transmitted more rapidly via a data communications network" and "it requires less memory space in a construction model of a technical system in which it is embedded." Thus, the Specification plainly describes that the subject matter claimed, for example, in claims 17, 32, and 33, "improve[s] the functioning of the computer itself" or "other technology or technical field." As discussed, for example, in M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a), improvement(s) in computer-functionality or other technology or technical field, qualify as "significantly more" and are sufficient to establish patent eligibility. Here, the Specification expressly describes improvement(s) in computer functionality or other technology or technical field, .e.g., reduced memory requirements and rapid data transmission, in view of "the volume model defining only the outer edges and outer surfaces of the object but no inner structure." Therefore, since the Specification describes that the presently-claim subject matter, for example, "improve[s] the functioning of the computer itself" or "other technology or technical field," it is respectfully submitted that the present claims are patent-eligible for at least these additional reasons”
Applicant argues that the claimed invention realizes a tangible reduction in computer resource usage as a result of defining only the outer edges and surfaces of the object but no inner structure. Examiner notes that notes that the “generating … the volume model” steps requires no more than a general purpose computer. Further, the instant claims recite the use of said computer in a highly-generic manner, such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer. Therefore, the computer itself operates in its normal and customary manner, with the reduced computing requirements resulting wholly and directly from the “generating … the volume model”.
Rejection of Claims 17 to 19, 22, 23, 25 to 27, 32, 33, and 36 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments over Rossignac I and Rossignac II and Tayal have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejection is withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection is included over Fontes et al. (US 2019/0138675).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 40 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 40 (and similarly claim 41 – 42), it recites “the material type”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “a material type” was deleted in the instant parent claim. The limitation is interpreted as having proper antecedent basis for examination purposes.
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 17 - 20, 22, 24 – 26, 29 – 35 and 37 - 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 17 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method, comprising: generating a construction model for the object from component construction models of the components as a function of the configuration parameters, a component construction model for each component being stored in a data collection, and a component construction model defining at least one outer surface of the component; and generating the volume model for the object from component volume models of the components, the component volume models being superimposed onto one another and outer surfaces of component volume models that are included in an interior space of another component volume model and/or that abut outer surfaces of another component volume model being removed, each component volume model including a material type, a thermal conductivity, and/or a weight of the component, the volume model for the object defining outer edges, outer surfaces, and no inner structure of the object; wherein the object includes housing components and inner components, a component volume model for outer surfaces of a housing is allocated to the housing components, and no component volume model is allocated to the inner components.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “generating the construction model” is explicitly a function of parameters which amounts to mathematical equations in textual form. The “generating the volume model” and “wherein the object includes housing components and inner components” are explicitly from “component volume models” that are constructed directly by geometrical operations (e.g. “superimposed” and “outer surfaces … being removed”) which amounts to geometrical operations in textual form. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the steps are by a computer; receiving, by a first computer, configuration parameters for the object, the configuration parameters indicating the components that make up the object and/or a type of the component; and transmitting, by the first computer to a second computer, the generated volume model for the object; and producing the object based on the construction model of the object. The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “generating” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “transmitting” amounts to insignificant data outputting. The “producing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome using “the construction model of the object”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “receiving” and “transmitting” amount(s) to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since they reasonably encompasses any electronic means for receiving/transmitting data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The additional elements considered in combination do not add anything more than when considered individually since the “receiving” and “transmitting” do not require anything more than generic computer functions for their implementation. The “producing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 18 – 20, 22, 24 – 26, 29 – 31, 39 - 40 and 43 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 18 generating the component volume models from the component construction models by filling an interior space of the component construction model; Claim 19 generating the component volume models from basic component volume models as a function of the configuration parameters; Claim 20 embedding the volume model in a system construction model of a technical system that includes the object; Claim 20 performing a collision check of the volume model with other construction models of a technical system; Claim 20 ascertaining a correct installation of the object based on the collision check; Claim 22 wherein physical parameters are allocated to each component volume model, and the physical parameters are allocated to the volume model of the object; Claim 24 wherein the physical parameters include mechanical parameters, and the mechanical parameters include a rotatability about an axle and/or movability in a space region; Claim 26 wherein a component volume model includes a depression, a cavity, and/or a concave region; and Claim 29 wherein the collision check includes determining whether the volume model overlaps with another construction model of the technical system; and Claim 40 wherein each component volume model includes the material type and the thermal conductivity of the component; and Claim 43 wherein each component volume model includes a material type and/or a weight of the component.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “generating the component volume models” are constructed directly by geometrical operations (e.g. “by filling an interior space”) and as a function of parameters, which amount to mathematical equations in textual form. The “component volume model includes” further limits the models with geometric shapes or parameters, which does not change the mathematical nature of the models. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “embedding” amounts to any manner of including the volume model in another model which could reasonably be performed in the mind since there are no limitations on the resulting system construction model which could be evaluated and judged in the mind. The “performing a collision check” and “ascertaining” require evaluating a generic “collision” and “correct installation” condition for the models, such evaluating reasonably being performed in the mind. The “physical parameters are allocated” and “physical parameters include” and require a generic “allocated” (or precludes an “allocated”) which does not preclude performance in the mind since they require no more than associating the physical parameters with models. The “determining” require evaluating a generic “overlaps” condition, such evaluating reasonably being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 19 storing in the data collection each basic component volume model together with the component construction model for the component; Claim 25 simulating the object in a system construction model of a technical system based on the physical parameters; Claim 30 transmitting the construction model to a production system; and Claim 31 producing of the object is performed by the production system. The “storing” amount(s) to insignificant data outputting; and Claim 39 transmitting the construction model to a production facility, the production facility performing the producing of the object. The “computer” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “simulating” and “producing” amounts to reciting the idea of an outcome (i.e. a generic simulation) analogous to reciting the words “apply it”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the “simulating” and “producing” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since they do not meaningfully limit the application of the abstract idea at least since they do not recite details about how the “simulating” and “producing” are tangibly accomplished beyond merely being functionally linked to the abstract idea. The “storing” and “transmitting” are well-understood routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The additional elements considered in combination do not add anything more than when considered individually since the claim 30 “transmitting” and claim 31 “producing” merely recite a necessary transmitting of the design to be subsequently produced. All the additional elements when considered in combination with the parent claim 17 “receiving” (with the exception of claim 31 which is considered further in combination with claim 30) do not add anything to the “receiving” since at most they merely implicitly utilize the received data. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 32 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for providing a volume model for a mechanical object that includes multiple components that includes: generating a construction model for the object from component construction models of the components as a function of the configuration parameters, a component construction model for each component being stored in a data collection, and a component construction model defining at least one outer surface of the component; and generating the volume model for the object from component volume models of the components, the component volume models being superimposed onto one another and outer surfaces of component volume models that are included in an interior space of another component volume model and/or that abut outer surfaces of another component volume model being removed, each component volume model including a thermal conductivity of the component, the volume model for the object defining outer edges, outer surfaces, and no inner structure of the object; and wherein the object includes housing components and inner components, a component volume model for outer surfaces of a housing is allocated to the housing components, and no component volume model is allocated to the inner components.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “generating the construction model” is explicitly as a function of parameters which amounts to mathematical equations in textual form. The “generating the volume model” and “wherein the object includes housing components and inner components” are explicitly from “component volume models” that are constructed directly by geometrical operations (e.g. “superimposed” and “outer surfaces … being removed”) which amounts to geometrical operations in textual form. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for providing a volume model for a mechanical object that includes multiple components that includes; receiving configuration parameters for the object, the configuration parameters indicating the components that make up the object and/or a type of the component; that the “generating the volume model” and “transmitting” are by a first computer; transmitting, by the first computer to a second computer, the generated volume model for the object; producing the object based on the construction model of the object. The “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” and “by a first computer” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the “generating” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “transmitting” amounts to insignificant data outputting. The “producing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome using “the construction model of the object”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” and “by a first computer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “receiving” and “transmitting” amount(s) to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since they reasonably encompasses any electronic means for receiving/transmitting data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The additional elements considered in combination do not add anything more than when considered individually since the “receiving” and “transmitting” do not require anything more than generic computer functions for their implementation. The “producing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 41 and 44recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 41 wherein each component volume model includes the material type and the thermal conductivity of the component; and Claim 44 wherein each component volume model includes a material type and/or a weight of the component.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “component volume model includes” further limits the models with geometric shapes or parameters, which does not change the mathematical nature of the models. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 33 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system for providing a volume model, comprising: generate a construction model for the object from component construction models of the components as a function of the configuration parameters, a component construction model for each component being stored in a data collection, and a component construction model defining at least one outer surface of the component; and generate the volume model for the object from component volume models of the components, the component volume models being superimposed onto one another and outer surfaces of component volume models that are included in an interior space of another component volume model and/or that abut outer surfaces of another component volume model being removed, each component volume model including a thermal conductivity of the component, the volume model for the object defining outer edges, outer surfaces, and no inner structure of the object; wherein the object includes housing components and inner components, a component volume model for outer surfaces of a housing is allocated to the housing components, and no component volume model is allocated to the inner components.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “generating the construction model” is explicitly as a function of parameters which amounts to mathematical equations in textual form. The “generating the volume model” and “wherein the object includes housing components and inner components” are explicitly from “component volume models” that are constructed directly by geometrical operations (e.g. “superimposed” and “outer surfaces … being removed”) which amounts to geometrical operations in textual form. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for providing a volume model for a mechanical object that includes multiple components that includes; a first computer adapted to: receive configuration parameters for the object, the configuration parameters indicating the components that make up the object and/or a type of the component; and a second computer adapted to receive the volume model from the first computer via a data communications network that connects the second computer to the first computer; a production system adapted to produce the object based on the construction model. The “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” and “computer” and “data communications network” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “receive” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is gathered, and since the “generating” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “production system adapted to produce” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome using “the construction model”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” and “computer” and “data communications network” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “receive” amount(s) to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since they reasonably encompasses any electronic means for receiving/transmitting data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The additional elements considered in combination do not add anything more than when considered individually since the “receiving” and “transmitting” do not require anything more than generic computer functions for their implementation. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 34 – 35, 37 – 38, 42 and 45 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 34 the second computer is adapted to; Claim 34 embed the volume model in the system construction model of the technical system that includes the object; Claim 34 perform a collision check of the volume model with other construction models of the technical system; and Claim 34 ascertain a correct installation of the object based on the collision check; and Claim 42 wherein each component volume model includes the material type and the thermal conductivity of the component; and Claim 45 wherein each component volume model includes a material type and/or a weight of the component.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “embedding” amounts to any manner of including the volume model in another model which could reasonably be performed in the mind since there are no limitations on the resulting system construction model which could be evaluated and judged in the mind. The “perform a collision check” and “ascertain” require evaluating a generic “collision” and “correct installation” condition for the models, such evaluating reasonably being performed in the mind. The “component volume model includes” further limits the models with geometric shapes or parameters, which does not change the mathematical nature of the models. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 35 wherein the second computer is adapted to report to the first computer a result of the collision check; Claim 37 wherein the production system is adapted to receive the construction model transmitted by the first computer and/or the second computer; and Claim 38 wherein the first computer and/or the second computer is adapted to transmit the construction model to the production system via the data communications network. The “report” and “receive” and “transmit” amount to insignificant data gathering and outputting amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is gathered/outputted (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “report” and “receive” and “transmit” are well-understood routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The additional elements considered in combination do not add anything more than when considered individually since the claim 37 “transmit” and claim 38 “produce” merely recite a necessary transmitting of the design to be subsequently produced. All the additional elements when considered in combination with the parent claim 33 “receive” (with the exception of claim 37 which is considered further in combination with claim 38) do not add anything to the “receiving” since at most they merely implicitly utilize the received data. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17 – 19, 22, 25 – 26, 32 – 33 and 39 - 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossignac, J. “Solid and Physical Modeling” (henceforth “Rossignac”) in view of Rossignac et al. “Solid Modeling” (henceforth “Rossignac (Solid)”), and further in view of Tayal et al. (US 2013/0046511) (henceforth “Tayal (511)”), and further in view of Fontes et al. (US 2019/0138675) (henceforth “Fontes (675)”). Rossignac and Rossignac (Solid) and Tayal (511) and Fontes (675) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of performing solid modeling using volumes, and because they are in the same field of CAD.
With regard to claim 17, Rossignac teaches a method for providing a volume model for a mechanical object that includes multiple components, comprising: (Rossignac Page 1, Top “where precise models of parts and assemblies are created using a solid modeler—a computer program that provides facilities for designing, storing, manipulating and visualizing assemblies of solids”)
receiving, by a first computer, configuration parameters for the object, the configuration parameters indicating the components that make up the object and/or a type of the component; (Rossignac Page 18, Middle parameters are used to configure an object (receiving configuration parameters) comprised of primitives (indicated the components) “The size and position parameters used to instantiate the primitives needed to represent an object provide a natural parameterization for the object”, Page 1, Top steps are performed by a computer-aided design system (by a first computer))
generating, by the first computer, a construction model for the object from component construction models of the components as a function of the configuration parameters, (Rossignac Figure 10 and Page 13 the resulting solid is comprised of multiple primitives (from component construction models of the components) “A CSG solid S is defined as a regularized Boolean expression that combines primitive solid instances through union (+), intersection (omitted), and difference (–) operators”
PNG
media_image1.png
152
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and Page 12, Bottom the primitives are parameterized (as a function of the configuration parameters) “Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) is the most popular constructive representation. Its primitives are typically parameterized solids (such as cylinders, cones, spheres, blocks, tori), volume features … The primitives may be instantiated multiple times (possibly with different parameter values, positions, and orientations) and grouped hierarchically”)
a component construction model defining at least one outer surface of the component; and (Rossignac Page 14 the CSG model defines a boundary “The boundary of a CSG solid S is the union of the trimmed boundaries of its primitives, where the trimming solid for a primitive A is its active zone Z”)
generating, by the first computer, the volume model for the object from component volume models of the components, (Rossignac Page 4 a volume from component volumes is determined the “Assume that we know the boundary of two solids A and B. How should we compute the boundary of their Boolean combination S (for example A+B, AB, A–B)? The solid modeling algorithms that perform this computation are all based on the fundamental principle that the boundary of a Boolean combination is a subset of the union bA+bB. Hence, the faces of S are subsets of the faces of A and B).”)
the component volume models being superimposed onto one another and outer surfaces of component volume models that are included in an interior space of another component volume model and/or that abut outer surfaces of another component volume model being removed, (Rossignac Figure 7 component volumes are superimposed
PNG
media_image2.png
103
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and Page 7, Top the union involves testing for whether one shell is inside the other shell (outer surfaces that are included in an interior space of another component being removed) “To do this, we first build a shell containment tree, which has the universe as root and shells as internal nodes and leaves. Each shell is included in the shell of the parent node. To test whether shell Mi is in shell Mk we pick any one vertex of Mi and compute its membership with respect to Mk as explained above”)
producing an object based on a construction model of the object. (Rossignac Page 2, Bottom “The ability to design and process mathematically precise representations that distinguish between the interior, the boundary, and the exterior of a rigid object being modeled is important to manufacturing or construction applications”)
Rossignac does not appear to explicitly disclose: a component construction model for each component being stored in a data collection; each component volume model including a thermal conductivity of the component; and transmitting, by the first computer to a second computer, the generated volume model for the object.
However, Rossignac (Solid) teaches:
a component construction model for components being stored in a data collection, and (Rossignac (Solid) Figure 1 desired data can be archived in a database with predictable results
PNG
media_image3.png
263
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
transmitting, by the first computer to a second computer, the generated volume model for the object (Rossignac (Solid) Page 15, Bottom an existing 3D model is download over a connection (via a data communications network) to a graphics board (a second computer) “In many industrial applications, complex 3D models approximated by millions of triangles, must be archived, downloaded using limited bandwidth connections, and finally transmitted to the rendering subsystem at each frame (or stored on the graphics board’s limited local memory”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries disclosed by Rossignac with the interactive system and data collection access disclosed by Rossignac (Solid). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allows users to interactively manipulate stored geometries (Rossignac (Solid) Page 2, Top “A solid modeling system, often called a solid modeler, is a computer program that provides facilities for storing and manipulating data structures that represent the geometry of individual objects or assemblies. These representations can be created either by a human through a graphic user interface (GUI), or specified by software applications via an application programming interface (API).”).
Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid) does not appear to explicitly disclose: the volume model for the object defining outer edges, outer surfaces, and no inner structure of the object; wherein the object includes housing components and inner components, a component volume model for outer surfaces of a housing is allocated to the housing components, and no component volume model is allocated to the inner components.
However, Tayal (511) teaches:
a volume model for an object defining outer edges, outer surfaces, and no inner structure of the object; wherein the object includes housing components and inner components, a component volume model for outer surfaces of a housing is allocated to the housing components, and no component volume model is allocated to the inner components (Tayal (511) Paragraph 27 all internal components can be desirably removed leaving only the housing components defined in a CAD model (no inner structure of the object, and no component volume model allocated to the inner components), where the mechanical object itself still has inner components which are not directly represented in the model (object includes inner components) “Upon removing or deleting the internal components which could be proprietary in nature or contain proprietary information, embodiments of the present invention may simplify the external components by reducing the number of components to a more reasonable and manageable amount. For example, a turbocharger may be reduced to four major components including a turbine housing, a compressor housing, center assembly, and actuator.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid) with the method of deselecting internal components disclosed by Tayal (511). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to simplify the model and/or hide proprietary information (Tayal (511) Paragraph 27).
Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511) does not appear to explicitly disclose: producing the object based on the construction model of the object.
However, Fontes (675) teaches:
each component volume including a thermal conductivity of a component, (Fontes (675) Paragraph 831 “Other exemplary material parameters can include specific heat capacity, CP, temperature, T, thermal conductivity, k, electric potential, cp, and electrical conductivity, K”, and Figure 98 a geometric representation having multiple components are linked to physical properties
PNG
media_image4.png
632
783
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and Figure 75 specific geometries are linked to specific properties
PNG
media_image5.png
182
263
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511) with the method of linking physical properties to CAD model geometries as disclosed by Fontes (675). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform physical simulations of a CAD model (see Fontes (675) Abstract).
With regard to claim 32, it recites the same steps as claim 17, which is taught by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675). Claim 32 further recites: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for providing a volume model for a mechanical object that includes multiple components that includes the steps.
Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for providing a volume model for a mechanical object that includes multiple components that includes the steps (Tayal (511) Paragraph 40 computer-readable storage comprising program instructions that when executed by a computer perform modeling steps).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid) with the method of deselecting internal components disclosed by Tayal (511). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to simplify the model and/or hide proprietary information (Tayal (511) Paragraph 27).
With regard to claim 18, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches:
generating the component volume models from the component construction models by filling an interior space of the component construction model. (Rossignac Page 14 the primitives have respective boundaries and are a solids (filling an interior space) “The boundary of a CSG solid S is the union of the trimmed boundaries of its primitives, where the trimming solid for a primitive A is its active zone Z”)
With regard to claim 19, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches:
generating the component volume models from basic component volume models as a function of the configuration parameters; and (Rossignac Figure 10 and 13 the higher-level primitives (component volume models) have lower-level primitives in the tree (from basic component volume models) “A CSG solid S is defined as a regularized Boolean expression that combines primitive solid instances through union (+), intersection (omitted), and difference (–) operators”)
storing in the data collection each basic component volume model together with the component construction model for the component. (Rossignac (Solid) Figure 1 desired data can be archived in a database with predictable results
PNG
media_image3.png
263
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries disclosed by Rossignac with the interactive system and data collection access disclosed by Rossignac (Solid). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allows users to interactively manipulate stored geometries (Rossignac (Solid) Page 2, Top “A solid modeling system, often called a solid modeler, is a computer program that provides facilities for storing and manipulating data structures that represent the geometry of individual objects or assemblies. These representations can be created either by a human through a graphic user interface (GUI), or specified by software applications via an application programming interface (API).”).
With regard to claim 22, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches:
wherein physical parameters are allocated to each component volume model, and the physical parameters are allocated to the volume model of the object. (Rossignac Page 8, Bottom “This formulation may be easily extended to compute the center of mass of the solid and other integral properties”)
With regard to claim 25, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 22, and further teaches:
further comprising simulating the object in a system construction model of a technical system based on the physical parameters. (Rossignac Page 8, Bottom the physical properties computations can include other desired integral properties, where mass of an object is a sum of the mass of all the volume of said object (i.e. integral property) “This formulation may be easily extended to compute the center of mass of the solid and other integral properties”), and Page 1, Middle a kinematic analysis can be performed using the modeling, where it is implicit that kinematics includes mass “Analysis algorithms are available for generating displays of solids in many styles and degrees of realism, for kinematic simulation, for the evaluation of mass properties [Gonzalez98], for interference detection [Rossignac89] in static environments, and so on.”)
With regard to claim 26, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches:
wherein a component volume model includes a depression, a cavity, and/or a concave region. (Rossignac Figure 6 the solid can have a curved inward region (a depression or concave region)
With regard to claim 33, it recites the same steps as claim 17, which is taught by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675). Claim 33 further recites: a system for providing a volume model, comprising: a first computer adapted to perform the steps; and a second computer adapted to receive the volume model from the first computer via a data communications network that connects the second computer to the first computer; a production system adapted to produce the object based on the construction model.
Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches:
a second computer adapted to receive the volume model from the first computer via a data communications network that connects the second computer to the first computer.(Rossignac (Solid) Page 15, Bottom an existing 3D model is download over a connection (via a data communications network) to a graphics board (a second computer) “In many industrial applications, complex 3D models approximated by millions of triangles, must be archived, downloaded using limited bandwidth connections, and finally transmitted to the rendering subsystem at each frame (or stored on the graphics board’s limited local memory”)
a system for providing a volume model, comprising: a first computer adapted to perform the steps (Tayal (511) Paragraph 40 computer-readable storage comprising program instructions that when executed by a computer perform modeling steps).
a production system adapted to produce the object based on the construction model. (Rossignac Page 1, Top “When used in the CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design / Computer-Aided Manufacturing) industry, solid modeling impacts a variety of design and manufacturing activities”, and Page 2, Middle “The ability to design and process mathematically precise representations that distinguish between the interior, the boundary, and the exterior of a rigid object being modeled is important to manufacturing or construction applications.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries disclosed by Rossignac with the interactive system and data collection access disclosed by Rossignac (Solid). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allows users to interactively manipulate stored geometries (Rossignac (Solid) Page 2, Top “A solid modeling system, often called a solid modeler, is a computer program that provides facilities for storing and manipulating data structures that represent the geometry of individual objects or assemblies. These representations can be created either by a human through a graphic user interface (GUI), or specified by software applications via an application programming interface (API).”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid) with the method of deselecting internal components disclosed by Tayal (511). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to simplify the model and/or hide proprietary information (Tayal (511) Paragraph 27).
With regard to claim 39, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches:
transmitting the construction model to a production facility, (Rossignac (Solid) Page 15, Bottom an existing 3D model is download over a connection (via a data communications network) to a graphics board (a second computer) “In many industrial applications, complex 3D models approximated by millions of triangles, must be archived, downloaded using limited bandwidth connections, and finally transmitted to the rendering subsystem at each frame (or stored on the graphics board’s limited local memory”)
the production facility performing the producing of the object. (Rossignac Page 2, Bottom “The ability to design and process mathematically precise representations that distinguish between the interior, the boundary, and the exterior of a rigid object being modeled is important to manufacturing or construction applications”)
With regard to claim 40 and 41 and 42, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17 and 32 and 33, and further teaches: wherein each component volume model includes the material type and the thermal conductivity of the component. (Fontes (675) Figure 114
PNG
media_image6.png
78
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and Paragraph 831 “Other exemplary material parameters can include specific heat capacity, CP, temperature, T, thermal conductivity, k, electric potential, cp, and electrical conductivity, K”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511) with the method of linking physical properties to CAD model geometries as disclosed by Fontes (675). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform physical simulations of a CAD model (see Fontes (675) Abstract).
With regard to claim 43 and 44 and 45, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17 and 32 and 33, and further teaches: wherein each component volume model includes a material type and/or a weight of the component. (Rossignac (Solid) Page 12, Top a solid’s mass is computed "For example, point membership classification for points on a regular grid can be used to construct a spatial enumeration approximation for a solid, which in turn facilitates the computation of the so/id's mass and moments of inertia”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries disclosed by Rossignac with the interactive system and data collection access disclosed by Rossignac (Solid). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allows users to interactively manipulate stored geometries (Rossignac (Solid) Page 2, Top “A solid modeling system, often called a solid modeler, is a computer program that provides facilities for storing and manipulating data structures that represent the geometry of individual objects or assemblies. These representations can be created either by a human through a graphic user interface (GUI), or specified by software applications via an application programming interface (API).”).
Claims 20, 29 and 34 - 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675), and further in view of Sriram, K. “Rapid detection of shallow penetration between non-convex polyhedra” (henceforth “Krishnan (Thesis)”). Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid) and Tayal (511) and Fontes (675) and Krishnan (Thesis) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of performing solid modeling using volumes, and because they are in the same field of CAD.
With regard to claim 20, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: embedding the volume model in a system construction model of a technical system that includes the object; performing a collision check of the volume model with other construction models of a technical system; and ascertaining a correct installation of the object based on the collision check.
However, Krishnan (Thesis) teaches:
embedding the volume model in a system construction model of a technical system that includes the object; (Krishan (Thesis) Page 17 the objects can be part of a virtual world containing other objects (embedding the volume model in a system construction model) “Detecting collisions between the objects in the virtual world and determining realistic contact forces are necessary in order to fake physical systems using virtual reality.”)
performing a collision check of the volume model with other construction models of a technical system; and (Krishan (Thesis) Page 17 the objects can be part of a virtual world containing other objects (embedding the volume model in a system construction model) “Detecting collisions between the objects in the virtual world and determining realistic contact forces are necessary in order to fake physical systems using virtual reality.”)
performing a collision check of the volume model with other construction models of a technical system; and (Krishnan (Thesis) Page 28 – 29 objects are evaluated for overlap “Figure 7 Two objects don't overlap if their bounding volumes don't overlap ... In collision detection algorithms, efficacy of the object representation and the bounding volume representation should be evaluated from the perspective of overlap detection as well as update time”)
ascertaining a correct installation of the object based on the collision check. (Krishnan (Thesis) Abstract objects that collide (based on the collision check) should be corrected (ascertaining a correct installation) “While collision "detection" refers to checking if two objects have a non-empty intersection set, we are more interested in the topic of collision "avoidance" where correction measures are also proposed to remove two objects from collision … Wherever penetration occurs, we compute the depth of penetration and use all the depth values to compute an overall collision avoidance schema.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) with the overlap detection disclosed by Krishnan (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take appropriate action based on a collision (Krishnan (Thesis) Abstract).
With regard to claim 29, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 20, and further teaches:
wherein the collision check includes determining whether the volume model overlaps with another construction model of the technical system. (Krishnan (Thesis) Page 28 “Figure 7 Two objects don't overlap if their bounding volumes don't overlap”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) with the overlap detection disclosed by Krishnan (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take appropriate action based on a collision(Krishnan (Thesis) Abstract).
With regard to claim 34, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 33, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: the second computer is adapted to: embedding the volume model in the system construction model of the technical system that includes the object.
However, Krishnan (Thesis) teaches:
a second computer is adapted to: embed a volume model in a system construction model of a technical system that includes an object; (Krishan (Thesis) Page 17 the objects can be part of a virtual world containing other objects (embedding the volume model in a system construction model) “Detecting collisions between the objects in the virtual world and determining realistic contact forces are necessary in order to fake physical systems using virtual reality.”, Page 40 can be implemented on another computer “However, present day processors have a clock speed exceeding 1 GHz and can handle much more complicated representations.”)
perform a collision check of the volume model with other construction models of the technical system; and (Krishnan (Thesis) Page 28 - 29 “Figure 7 Two objects don't overlap if their bounding volumes don't overlap … The computationally efficient representation should match the underlying object's geometry as closely as possibly and should also be tight fitting. Alongside having a high accuracy, one should consider other operational parameters such as the core and verbosity, depending on the application. In collision detection algorithms, efficacy of the object representation and the bounding volume representation should be evaluated from the perspective of overlap detection as well as update time”)
ascertain a correct installation of the object based on the collision check. (Krishnan (Thesis) Abstract objects that collide (based on the collision check) should be corrected (ascertaining a correct installation) “While collision "detection" refers to checking if two objects have a non-empty intersection set, we are more interested in the topic of collision "avoidance" where correction measures are also proposed to remove two objects from collision … Wherever penetration occurs, we compute the depth of penetration and use all the depth values to compute an overall collision avoidance schema.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) with the overlap detection disclosed by Krishnan (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take appropriate action based on a collision (Krishnan (Thesis) Abstract).
With regard to claim 35, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675), and further in view of Krishnan (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 34, and further teaches:
wherein the second computer is adapted to report to the first computer a result of the collision check. (Krishnan (Thesis) Paragraph 83 a feedback of a collision on a local system is transmitted to a remote user (a second computer report to a first computer a result of a collision check) “Collision algorithms integrated into haptic systems can be used to perform tele-virtual surgery. Several expert surgeons could bring together their expertise in operating a patient through tele-virtual surgery. A remotely located surgeon could operate on a virtual patient and can instruct the surgeon performing the operation about specific tasks to be done. The force feedback system enhances the touch and feel experienced by the remote surgeon and his instructions are more accurate than being guess-work.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) with the forcefeeback disclosed by Krishnan (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take appropriate action based on a collision (Krishnan (Thesis) Abstract).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675), and further in view of “SolidWorks 98 User’s Guide” (henceforth “SolidWorks 1998”). Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid) and Tayal (511) and Fontes (675) and SolidWorks 1998 are analogous art because they solve the same problem of performing solid modeling using volumes, and because they are in the same field of CAD.
With regard to claim 24, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 22, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the physical parameters include mechanical parameters, and the mechanical parameters include a rotatability about an axle and/or movability in a space region.
However, SolidWorks 1998 teaches:
wherein the physical parameters include mechanical parameters, and the mechanical parameters include a rotatability about an axle and/or movability in a space region. (SolidWorks 1998 Page 6-11 “As you add mating relationships, you can move the components within the unconstrained degrees of freedom, visualizing the mechanism’s behavior”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries on an interactive system with data collection disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) with the system for solid modeling disclosed by SolidWorkd 1998. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform desired solid modeling operations (SolidWorks 1998 Page 1-1 “This easy-to-learn tool makes it possible for mechanical designers to quickly sketch out ideas, experiment with features and dimensions, and produce models and detailed drawings”).
Claims 30 – 31 and 37 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675), and further in view of Lalish, E. (US 2017/0116779) (henceforth “Lalish (779)”). Rossignac and Rossignac (Solid) and Tayal (511) and Fontes (675) and Lalish (779) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of performing solid modeling using volumes, and because they are in the same field of CAD.
With regard to claim 30, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: transmitting the construction model to a production system.
However, Lalish (779) teaches:
further comprising transmitting the construction model to a production system. (Lalish (779) Paragraph 67 “The user may store the volumetric mesh model to disk storage 614, and send the volumetric mesh model to a fabricator, such as the fabricator 100 described below in relation to FIG. 1.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) with the manufacturing volumetric model disclosed by Lalith (779). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to build a desired 3D object (Lalith (779) Abstract).
With regard to claim 31, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Lalith (779) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 30, and further teaches:
wherein the producing of the object is performed by the production system. (Lalish (779) Paragraph 46 “FIG. 5 is a diagram of an example volumetric mesh 502 with mirror tiling and the 3D object 504 manufactured from the volumetric mesh 502.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511) with the manufacturing volumetric model disclosed by Lalith (779). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to build a desired 3D object (Lalith (779) Abstract).
With regard to claim 37, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 33, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the production system is adapted to receive the construction model transmitted by the first computer and/or the second computer.
However, Lalish (779) teaches:
wherein the production system is adapted to receive the construction model transmitted by the first computer and/or the second computer. (Lalish (779) Paragraph 67 “The user may store the volumetric mesh model to disk storage 614, and send the volumetric mesh model to a fabricator, such as the fabricator 100 described below in relation to FIG. 1.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) with the manufacturing volumetric model disclosed by Lalith (779). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to build a desired 3D object (Lalith (779) Abstract).
With regard to claim 38, Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675), and further in view of Lalish (779) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 37, and further teaches:
wherein the first computer and/or the second computer is adapted to transmit the construction model to the production system via the data communications network. (Lalish (779) Figure 6 and Paragraph 61 the transmission can be through a network interface “Remote computers 634 can be logically connected to the computer 602 through a network interface 636 and then connected via a communication connection 638, which may be wireless”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the CSG solid modeling represented as boundaries with interactive system disclosed by Rossignac in view of Rossignac (Solid), and further in view of Tayal (511), and further in view of Fontes (675) with the manufacturing volumetric model disclosed by Lalith (779). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to build a desired 3D object (Lalith (779) Abstract).
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either to specific areas or as direct language, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore the lack of a citation to other portions which inform the interpretation of the cited portions, is in no way intended to exclude said other portions. Any direct language, as shown with quotation marks, is intended solely to further point out the teachings provided to one of ordinary skill in the art, and is in no way intended to limit the relied upon teachings to only the quoted portions existing in a vacuum.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187