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 .
This office action is responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12, 15, and 18 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks, page 19-20, regarding consideration as a whole, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, the remarks alleges that if the claim when considered as a whole cannot be performed in the human mind, then the claim cannot be considered abstract under prong 1 as a mental process. Examiner notes that the consideration as a whole with additional elements is a consideration under Step 2A Prong 2 and/or Step 2B, not under Step 2A Prong 1. Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea if it recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims recite abstract ideas as explained in the 101 rejection below.
With respect to the remarks, pages 20 and 23, regarding the newly amended subject matter, the arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
With respect to the remarks, page 21-23, regarding technical improvement, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, Examiner notes that it is important to note that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Additionally, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), for improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology.” The improvement must be provided by additional elements.
In this case, the limitations the remarks alleges as providing the alleged technical improvement, namely “adding (S20) N layers adjacent to the modeled object, N being a positive integer number defined as N=("gap-size"/2)+1, where "gap-size" is a provided value”; “computing …”; “identifying …”; and “reducing …”, amount to abstract ideas as explained in the 101 rejection. Therefore, they cannot provide improvement.
With respect to the remarks, page 24, regarding preponderance of the evidence, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, the claims are not eligible under §101 as explained in the 101 rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 12, 15, and 18 recite the limitation “thereby enhancing access times for rendering”. This limitation amounts to a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, which does not impose structural limits. Therefore, Examiner suggests removing this limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 12-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 15-17 are directed to a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 18-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “adding N layers adjacent to the modeled object, N being a positive integer number defined as N=(gap-size/2)+ 1, where gap-size is a provided value, by: adding N -1 layers iteratively from layer 1 to the layer N-1, by performing for a respective layer p starting from p=1 to N-1: for the layer p=1 : identifying empty cells of the second set that are neighbors of intersected cells of the first set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “adding the identified cells of the second set to the set of cells of the first set, the added cells of the second set thereby forming the layer p=1” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “proceeding iteratively from the layers p=2 top=N-1 by performing: identifying empty cells of the second set that are neighbors of cells of the first set forming layer p-1” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “adding the identified cells of the second set to the set of cells of the first set, the added cells of the second set thereby forming the respective layer p” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “after adding the N-1 layers, adding an Nth layer by performing: identifying empty cells of the second set that are neighbors of cells of the first set forming the layer N-1” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “adding the identified empty cells of the second set to a third set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “computing one or more contiguous sets of cells of the third set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, computing a contiguous set of cells covers someone mentally observing the sets of cells and determining contiguous cells using a mental judgement.
The limitation “identifying one or more contiguous sets that enclose the discretized modeled object and keeping in the third set only cells of the said identifying one or more contiguous sets” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying a contiguous set of cells covers someone mentally observing the sets of cells and determining contiguous cells using a mental judgement.
The limitation “wherein identifying the one or more contiguous sets that enclose the discretized modeled object further comprises: determining whether one or more determined contiguous sets are enclosed by one or more other determined contiguous sets” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this covers someone mentally observing the contiguous sets and making a mental judgment of whether or not they are enclosed.
The limitation “if one or more determined contiguous sets are enclosed by one or more other determined contiguous sets, removing the cells of the enclosed contiguous sets of cells of the third set by adding the cells of the determined contiguous sets of cells to a fourth set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, removing and adding cells covers someone removing data from a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “reducing the first set of cells, by creating N-1 layers of the third cells of the third set iteratively from a respective layer p starting from s=N-1 to 1 by performing: for the layer s=N-1: identifying third cells of the third set forming layer N that are neighbors of cells of the first set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “adding the cells of the first set, having as neighbors the identified third cells of the third set of layer, to the third set of cells, the added cells of the second set thereby forming the respective layer s=N-1 of third cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “proceeding iteratively from the layer s=N-2 to s= 1 by performing: identifying thirds cells of the third set forming the layers s+ 1 that are neighbor of cells of the first set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “adding the cells of the first set having as neighbors the identified cells of the third set to the third set of cells, added cells of the second set thereby forming the respective layers third cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “computing the envelope of the obtained modeled object from the cells of the third set obtained from the reducing of the first set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, computing an envelope of a model from cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and determining an envelope, for example, by mentally determining cells that form an envelope of the model.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements. However, they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “obtaining a modeled object that is discretized into a grid of cells, thereby obtaining a grid comprising a first set of cells intersected by the modeled object and a second set of empty cells” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “storing the grid of cells into a data structure, splitting the first, second, third and fourth set of cells into several ones referring only to voxels of the same sub-grid, splitting the grid of cells into equally-sized sub-cells of 32 cells for each [x.y,z] dimension of the grid, and encoding a [x.y,z] position of a cell of a sub-grid into 15 bits, wherein 5 bits are reserved per ordinate” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Storing data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This also amounts to an insignificant post-solution activity of storing a result in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element “wherein the data structure has 9 bytes for a homogeneous sub-volume, the homogeneous sub-volume having only cells belonging to a same set of cells among the first, second, third or fourth sets of cells, the data structure having 8192 bytes being dynamically allocated for an inhomogeneous sub-volume, each byte encoding four cells of a same set of cells, the inhomogeneous sub-volume having cells belonging to two or more set of cells among the first, second, third and/or fourth sets of cells, thereby enhancing access times for rendering” merely further limits the data structure recited in the previous limitation. Therefore, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer and an insignificant post-solution activity for the similar reasons. Examiner also notes that data structure is a generic computer function/component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element “obtaining a modeled object that is discretized into a grid of cells, thereby obtaining a grid comprising a first set of cells intersected by the modeled object and a second set of empty cells” is a data gathering activity that is akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
The additional elements “storing the grid of cells into a data structure, splitting the first, second, third and fourth set of cells into several ones referring only to voxels of the same sub-grid, splitting the grid of cells into equally-sized sub-cells of 32 cells for each [x.y,z] dimension of the grid, and encoding a [x.y,z] position of a cell of a sub-grid into 15 bits, wherein 5 bits are reserved per ordinate” and “wherein the data structure has 9 bytes for a homogeneous sub-volume, the homogeneous sub-volume having only cells belonging to a same set of cells among the first, second, third or fourth sets of cells, the data structure having 8192 bytes being dynamically allocated for an inhomogeneous sub-volume, each byte encoding four cells of a same set of cells, the inhomogeneous sub-volume having cells belonging to two or more set of cells among the first, second, third and/or fourth sets of cells, thereby enhancing access times for rendering” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This is also akin to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “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”.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2:
The limitation “determining whether one or more determined contiguous sets are enclosed by one or more other determined contiguous sets” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this covers someone mentally observing the contiguous sets and making a judgment about whether or not they are enclosed.
The limitation “when one or more determined contiguous sets are enclosed by one or more other determined contiguous sets, removing the cells of the enclosed contiguous sets of cells of the third set by adding the cells of the determined contiguous sets of cells to a fourth set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, removing and adding cells covers someone removing data from a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 3:
The limitation “for each added N−1 layers: identifying cells of the fourth set that are neighbors of cells of the first set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “adding the cells of the first set having as neighbors the identified cells of the fourth set to the fourth set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “for each cell of the first set having no identified cells of the fourth set or no identified cells of the third set as neighbor: determining cells enclosing the cell, thereby forming a neighborhood of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, determining a neighborhood of cells covers someone mentally observing cells and making a judgment about cells enclosing a cell.
The limitation “adding the cell to the third set of cells if any cell of the neighborhood of cells intersects a cell of the third set or the second set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “or adding the cell to the fourth set of cells if no cell of the neighborhood of cells intersects a cell of the third set or the second set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 3 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 4:
The limitation “tracing a plurality of rays starting from the cell of the first set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, tracing rays covers someone drawing lines through cells mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “identifying cells of the said added N-1 layer intersected by the rays” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this covers someone mentally observing cells and making a judgment about whether they are intersected by a ray.
The limitation “forming the neighborhood of cells with the identified cells intersected by the rays” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, forming a neighborhood of cells covers someone mentally observing cells and making a judgment about their groupings.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5:
The limitation “wherein the rays are traced with a length that decreases for each of the reducing of the first set of cells, an initial length of the rays being of N cells” merely further limits the rays recited in claim 4. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 4 is applicable.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 6:
The limitation “before the computing of the envelope, performing a thinning of the cells of the third set that enclose the discretized modeled object by: identifying cells of the third set having for neighbors only cells that belong to the second or third set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “adding the identified cells to the second set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 7:
The limitation “before the computing of the envelope: penetrating the one or more contiguous sets of cells of the third set that enclose the discretized modeled object by: identifying cells of a fourth set of cells that are neighbors of cells of the third set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “adding the identified cells of the fourth set to the set third set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, adding cells to a set covers someone adding data into a set of data mentally or with a pen and paper.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 7 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 8:
The limitation “identifying cells of the third set having for neighbor cells of the second set of cells” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and making a judgment about the cells.
The limitation “computing the envelope of the obtained modeled object from the identified cells of the third set” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, computing an envelope of a model from cells covers someone mentally observing the cells and determining an envelope.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 merely further limits the obtained modeled object recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 10:
The limitation “when the obtained modeled object is a 2d geometry represented by 2D vector graphics and the grid of cells is a 2d grid, the envelope is computed by converting the cells into a set of 2d lines” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, converting cells into 2d lines covers someone drawing a line connecting cells mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “when the obtained modeled object is a 3d geometry consisting of a mesh and the grid of cells is a grid of voxels, the envelope is computed by converting the identified cells into a quadrilateral mesh” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Converting cells into a quadrilateral mesh is recited generically that it could be performed using a generic computer using functionalities of generic CAD or CAE software. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 11:
The limitation “wherein when the obtained modeled object that is a 3d geometry, the envelope of the obtained modeled object is computed by converting, into a quadrilateral mesh, sides of each cell of the third set which are adjacent to cells of the second set” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Converting cells into a quadrilateral mesh is recited generically that it could be performed using a generic computer using functionalities of generic CAD or CAE software. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 is substantially similar to claims 1-3 and therefore the similar analysis as claims 1-3 is applicable.
Furthermore, the limitation “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing thereon a data structure storing a grid of cells in a non-transitory storage medium, the data structure partitioning the grid of cells into equally sized sub-grids, each sub-grid including pointers to at least one of first, second, third and fourth sets of cells of a method for designing an envelope of a modeled object” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. A non-transitory computer readable medium is a generic computer component. The use of data structure to store a grid and sets amounts to merely storing necessary data in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible.
Regarding claims 13 and 14: Claims 13 and 14 are substantially similar to claims 4 and 5 and therefore the similar analysis is applicable.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 12 and therefore the similar analysis is applicable.
Regarding claims 16-17 and 19-20: Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are substantially similar to claims 2 and 3 and therefore the similar analysis is applicable.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore the similar analysis is applicable.
Furthermore, the limitation “a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program the computer program comprising instructions for designing an envelope of a modeled object” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. A processor, a memory, and a graphical user interface are generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 18 is not eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The 103 rejection of claim(s) 1-20 is withdrawn based on the amendments to filed 07/09/2025. The limitation(s) include “being a positive integer number defined as N=(gap-size/2)+ 1” and “storing the grid of cells into a data structure, splitting the first, second, third and fourth set of cells into several ones referring only to voxels of the same sub-grid, splitting the grid of cells into equally-sized sub-cells of 32 cells for each [x.y,z] dimension of the grid, and encoding a [x.y,z] position of a cell of a sub-grid into 15 bits, wherein 5 bits are reserved per ordinate”, in combination with the all of the remaining limitations.
The closest prior art references of record are: Nguyen et al. (“Hole Boundary Detection of a Surface of 3D point clouds”) and Nooruddin et al. (“Simplification and Repair of Polygonal Models Using Volumetric Techniques”). These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including “being a positive integer number defined as N=(gap-size/2)+ 1” and “storing the grid of cells into a data structure, splitting the first, second, third and fourth set of cells into several ones referring only to voxels of the same sub-grid, splitting the grid of cells into equally-sized sub-cells of 32 cells for each [x.y,z] dimension of the grid, and encoding a [x.y,z] position of a cell of a sub-grid into 15 bits, wherein 5 bits are reserved per ordinate”, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIN JEONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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 on (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.
/HEIN JEONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186