DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the rejection of the feature “determining a set of candidate CAD faces of the CAD model displayed in the viewing window that satisfy a size criterion with respect to the viewing window” of claim 1 is improper. Applicant argues that no mathematical relationship or calculate is present. This is not agreed – determining a set of faces … that satisfy a size criterion is equivalent to reciting the action of counting. Counting is a numerical action. An algorithm that counts features based on numerically represented geometry (faces of a CAD model) in order to identify them is a mathematical algorithm. Even beyond this, this feature can also be conducted by a person mentally, as noted in the claim analysis. Applicant posits that the features are too complex to performed mentally, but no lower bound is presented in the claim regarding the complexity. A simple model of a pyramid (with four faces) would be easily analyzed by a person mentally, and would remain within the scope of the claims. In view of this, the arguments are respectfully not persuasive, as this feature is maintained to be within the scope of mathematical relationships or alternatively mental processes.
Applicant argues that the claim recites significantly more than any abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claims provide technical improvements. No specific claim language is mentioned in this allegation of technical improvements. Any technical improvements of the invention must be reflected in the claim language in order to confer eligibility. It is unclear which features of the claims provide a technical improvement at present (as opposed to an abstract one). This argument is respectfully not persuasive.
In view of the above, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues that interaction data is not disclosed by the cited references. Cote discloses, as cited in the rejection for this feature, “col 2 line 48-53, selecting a second set of tiles from the first set of tiles”. A selection of tiles is maintained to be interaction data. The Koylazov reference provides an illustration in its video, as cited, of interaction data that is distinct from the visualization data (the cursor data). Applicant argues that this cannot be the interaction data, as the claims require CAD data to comprise “CAD model data that supports user interaction with the candidate CAD faces of the CAD model”. When applying the cursor interaction features of Koylazov to the system of Cote, notably its selection operation as cited above, the resulting system would provide for this. Applicant is addressing the references individually, without any consideration for the combination here. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). When the references are taken together as set forth in the combination in the rejection, by applying “the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote” (quotation from motivation to combine references in the rejection), then the cursor interaction is for the tiles and CAD objects of Cote, and falls within the scope of the claim language, rendering it obvious.
Applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections, and those rejections are maintained.
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 an abstract idea (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising: (this falls within the statutory categories of invention)
by a client computing system: (this is a generic computer component being invoked merely as a tool to carry out the claimed steps. It falls within the scope of mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computer components as per MPEP 2106.05(f).)
accessing, from a server computing system, visualization data to display a computer-aided design (CAD) model in a viewing window of the client computing system; (insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g), or could also be interpreted as part of the generic computer component activity of transmitting and receiving data over a network, within the scope of MPEP 2106.05(f). The data itself is numerical in nature.)
wherein the visualization data is used to display the CAD model (intended use where the actual display operation is not positively recited, regardless, such display would likely be insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as per MPEP 2106.05(g), notably similar to example iii., Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display.)
determining a set of candidate CAD faces of the CAD model displayed in the viewing window that satisfy a size criterion with respect to the viewing window; and (this can be done numerically by performing a mathematical algorithm to count pixels, which would be within the scope of mathematical relationships. It could also be done by a person mentally observing the screen and evaluating the data there, then making a judgement)
querying the server computing system for interaction data of the candidate CAD faces without querying the server computing system for interaction data of non-candidate CAD faces of the CAD model that do not satisfy that size criterion, and wherein the non-candidate CAD faces of the CAD model are also displayed in the viewing window, (insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g), or could also be interpreted as part of the generic computer component activity of transmitting and receiving data over a network, within the scope of MPEP 2106.05(f). The data itself is numerical in nature.)
wherein the interaction data comprises CAD model data that supports user interaction with the candidate CAD faces of the CAD model, (details of the numerical data that recite intended use but not positive actions)
wherein the interaction data is distinct from the visualization data and does not comprise any of the visualization data used to display the CAD model. (further details of the numerical data that assign distinctions a person can follow by mental observation and evaluation)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the computing system), and 2) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (accessing data and querying the server for data) and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (displaying the visualization). The computing system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a computer performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The specification that data is transmitted/requested over a network and that a report is generated is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above for claim 1.
The dependent claims (1-7, 9-14, and 16-20) recite only further features that fall within the scope of mental processes or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, and remain ineligible for the above reasons.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote (US 7283135 B1) in view of Koylazov (V-Ray "Track mouse while rendering" for progressive mode, cited by applicant on the IDS dated 11/05/2021 as Non-Patent Literature (NPL) document #1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cote teaches:
by a client computing system: (Abstract, system of a client and a server; col 2 line 30-35, computer system for publishing CAD data over a network)
accessing, from a server computing system, visualization data to display a computer-aided design (CAD) model in a viewing window of the client computing system; (col 2 line 40-45, receiving a request for data in a viewing area from a client; col 2 line 55-60, a user request for a view of a part of a CAD data file; transmitting a data request to a server, where the request has a client view resolution)
wherein the visualization data is used to display the CAD model (claim 12, decompressing, interpreting and displaying said compressed and streamed data; col 9 line 13-19, If the user zooms in and reaches a point where elements from LOD 2 become sufficiently large to be visible on the user's screen, then tiles from LOD 2 are loaded. Because the client already contains the tiles from a lower resolution, only the tiles from LOD 2 that correspond to the view would be requested from the server.)
determining a set of candidate CAD faces of the CAD model displayed in the viewing window that satisfy a size criterion with respect to the viewing window; and (col 2 line 30-40, dividing CAD data from a CAD data file on a server into a plurality of levels of detail (LODs); associating each CAD element in the CAD data to a LOD that corresponds to the element's size; dividing the LODs into a plurality of tiles; associating each CAD element in the LOD to the smallest tiles that encloses the element ... selecting a first set of tiles from the data in the server cache, where the first set of tiles is viewable at the client's resolution;)
querying the server computing system for interaction data of the candidate CAD faces without querying the server computing system for interaction data of non-candidate CAD faces of the CAD model that do not satisfy that size criterion, (col 2 line 48-53, selecting a second set of tiles from the first set of tiles, where the second set of tiles is enclosed by the viewing area; prioritizing the second set of tiles; and publishing the second set of tiles to the client.)
and wherein the non-candidate CAD faces of the CAD model are also displayed in the viewing window, (col 9 line 13-19, If the user zooms in and reaches a point where elements from LOD 2 become sufficiently large to be visible on the user's screen, then tiles from LOD 2 are loaded. Because the client already contains the tiles from a lower resolution, only the tiles from LOD 2 that correspond to the view would be requested from the server; examiner notes that LOD 1 would be currently displayed but not candidate faces, while LOD 2 would be the candidate faces.)
wherein the interaction data comprises CAD model data that supports user interaction with the candidate CAD faces of the CAD model, (col 5 line 38-42, The CAD files 108 can store the CAD elements. The client computers 102 can be used, for example, by project designers, to view and to edit the CAD files 108.)
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
wherein the interaction data is distinct from the visualization data and does not comprise any of the visualization data used to display the CAD model. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30). Examiner notes that the position of the cursor would be the interaction data here.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Regarding Claim 3, Cote teaches:
wherein the size criterion is satisfied when a size of a given CAD face exceeds a threshold percentage of a size of the viewing window. (col 8 line 50-56, When the server receives a request from a client for a viewing region, the server determines which LODs contain elements that are actually visible to the user in terms of resolution. Visible elements are at least as large as some minimum number of pixels on the client's window for that resolution)
Regarding Claim 7, Cote teaches:
wherein the viewing window is a subsection of an application window. (col 2 line 40-45, receiving a request for data in a viewing area from a client;)
Regarding Claim 8, Cote teaches:
a processor; and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the processro, cause the client computing system to: (Abstract, system of a client and a server; col 2 line 30-35, computer system for publishing CAD data over a network)
access, from a server computing system remote to the client computing system, (Abstract, system of a client and a server; col 2 line 30-35, computer system for publishing CAD data over a network)
visualization data to display a computer-aided design (CAD) model in a viewing window of the client computing system; and (col 2 line 40-45, receiving a request for data in a viewing area from a client; col 2 line 55-60, a user request for a view of a part of a CAD data file; transmitting a data request to a server, where the request has a client view resolution)
wherein the visualization data is used to display the CAD model (claim 12, decompressing, interpreting and displaying said compressed and streamed data; col 9 line 13-19, If the user zooms in and reaches a point where elements from LOD 2 become sufficiently large to be visible on the user's screen, then tiles from LOD 2 are loaded. Because the client already contains the tiles from a lower resolution, only the tiles from LOD 2 that correspond to the view would be requested from the server.)
query the server computing system for interaction data of a selected portion of the CAD model visible in the viewing window, but not other portions of the CAD model also visible in the viewing window, (col 2 line 48-53, selecting a second set of tiles from the first set of tiles, where the second set of tiles is enclosed by the viewing area; prioritizing the second set of tiles; and publishing the second set of tiles to the client; col 9 line 13-19, If the user zooms in and reaches a point where elements from LOD 2 become sufficiently large to be visible on the user's screen, then tiles from LOD 2 are loaded. Because the client already contains the tiles from a lower resolution, only the tiles from LOD 2 that correspond to the view would be requested from the server; examiner notes that LOD 1 would be currently displayed but not candidate faces, while LOD 2 would be the candidate faces.)
wherein the interaction data comprises CAD model data that supports user interaction with the selected portion of the CAD model, and (col 5 line 38-42, The CAD files 108 can store the CAD elements. The client computers 102 can be used, for example, by project designers, to view and to edit the CAD files 108.)
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
wherein the interaction data is distinct from the visualization data and does not comprise any of the visualization data used to display the CAD model. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30). Examiner notes that the position of the cursor would be the interaction data here.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Regarding Claim 10, Cote teaches:
determining, as the selected portion, a set of candidate CAD model elements of the CAD model displayed in the viewing window that satisfy a size criterion with respect to the viewing window; and (col 2 line 30-40, dividing CAD data from a CAD data file on a server into a plurality of levels of detail (LODs); associating each CAD element in the CAD data to a LOD that corresponds to the element's size; dividing the LODs into a plurality of tiles; associating each CAD element in the LOD to the smallest tiles that encloses the element ... selecting a first set of tiles from the data in the server cache, where the first set of tiles is viewable at the client's resolution;)
querying the server computing system for interaction data of the candidate CAD model elements without querying the server computing system for interaction data of non-candidate CAD model elements of the CAD model that do not satisfy that size criterion. (col 2 line 48-53, selecting a second set of tiles from the first set of tiles, where the second set of tiles is enclosed by the viewing area; prioritizing the second set of tiles; and publishing the second set of tiles to the client.)
Regarding Claim 11, Cote teaches:
wherein the size criterion is satisfied when a size of a given CAD model element exceeds a threshold percentage of a size of the viewing window. (col 8 line 50-56, When the server receives a request from a client for a viewing region, the server determines which LODs contain elements that are actually visible to the user in terms of resolution. Visible elements are at least as large as some minimum number of pixels on the client's window for that resolution)
Regarding Claim 15, Cote teaches:
cause a client computing system to: (Abstract, system of a client and a server; col 2 line 30-35, computer system for publishing CAD data over a network)
determine a set of candidate CAD model elements of a CAD model displayed in a viewing window of the client computing system, including by determining the candidate CAD model elements satisfy a size criterion with respect to the viewing window; and (col 2 line 30-40, dividing CAD data from a CAD data file on a server into a plurality of levels of detail (LODs); associating each CAD element in the CAD data to a LOD that corresponds to the element's size; dividing the LODs into a plurality of tiles; associating each CAD element in the LOD to the smallest tiles that encloses the element ... selecting a first set of tiles from the data in the server cache, where the first set of tiles is viewable at the client's resolution;)
query a server computing system for interaction data of the candidate CAD model elements without querying the server computing system for interaction data of non-candidate CAD model elements of the CAD model that do not satisfy that size criterion, (col 2 line 48-53, selecting a second set of tiles from the first set of tiles, where the second set of tiles is enclosed by the viewing area; prioritizing the second set of tiles; and publishing the second set of tiles to the client.)
and wherein the non-candidate CAD faces of the CAD model are also displayed in the viewing window, (col 9 line 13-19, If the user zooms in and reaches a point where elements from LOD 2 become sufficiently large to be visible on the user's screen, then tiles from LOD 2 are loaded. Because the client already contains the tiles from a lower resolution, only the tiles from LOD 2 that correspond to the view would be requested from the server; examiner notes that LOD 1 would be currently displayed but not candidate faces, while LOD 2 would be the candidate faces.)
wherein the interaction data comprises CAD model data that supports user interaction with the candidate CAD model elements of the CAD model. (col 5 line 38-42, The CAD files 108 can store the CAD elements. The client computers 102 can be used, for example, by project designers, to view and to edit the CAD files 108.)
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
wherein the interaction data does not comprise any visualization data used to display the CAD model and wherein the interaction data is distinct from the visualization data used to display the CAD model. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30). Examiner notes that the position of the cursor would be the interaction data here.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Regarding Claim 17, Cote teaches:
determining, as the selected portion, a set of candidate CAD model elements of the CAD model displayed in the viewing window that satisfy a size criterion with respect to the viewing window; and (col 2 line 30-40, dividing CAD data from a CAD data file on a server into a plurality of levels of detail (LODs); associating each CAD element in the CAD data to a LOD that corresponds to the element's size; dividing the LODs into a plurality of tiles; associating each CAD element in the LOD to the smallest tiles that encloses the element ... selecting a first set of tiles from the data in the server cache, where the first set of tiles is viewable at the client's resolution;)
querying the server computing system for interaction data of the candidate CAD model elements without querying the server computing system for interaction data of non-candidate CAD model elements of the CAD model that do not satisfy that size criterion. (col 2 line 48-53, selecting a second set of tiles from the first set of tiles, where the second set of tiles is enclosed by the viewing area; prioritizing the second set of tiles; and publishing the second set of tiles to the client.)
Regarding Claim 18, Cote teaches:
wherein the size criterion is satisfied when a size of a given CAD model element exceeds a threshold percentage of a size of the viewing window. (col 8 line 50-56, When the server receives a request from a client for a viewing region, the server determines which LODs contain elements that are actually visible to the user in terms of resolution. Visible elements are at least as large as some minimum number of pixels on the client's window for that resolution)
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote (US 7283135 B1) in view of Koylazov (V-Ray "Track mouse while rendering" for progressive mode, cited by applicant on the IDS dated 11/05/2021 as Non-Patent Literature (NPL) document #1)
Regarding Claim 4:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
identifying movement of a cursor in the viewing window of the client computing system; (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
determining a set of proximate CAD faces of the CAD model within a proximity distance from the cursor; and (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
further querying the server computing system for interaction data of the proximate CAD faces. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Regarding Claim 5:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
identifying CAD faces of the CAD model within the proximity distance from the cursor that also satisfy a secondary size criterion, (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
wherein more CAD faces of the CAD model satisfy the secondary size criterion than the size criterion used to determine the candidate CAD faces of the CAD model. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Regarding Claim 12:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
identify movement of a cursor in the viewing window of the client computing system; (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
determine a set of proximate CAD model elements of the CAD model within a proximity distance from the cursor; and (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
further query the server computing system for interaction data of the proximate CAD model elements. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Regarding Claim 13:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
identifying CAD model elements of the CAD model within the proximity distance from the cursor that also satisfy a secondary size criterion, (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
wherein more CAD model elements of the CAD model satisfy the secondary size criterion than the size criterion used to determine the candidate CAD model elements of the CAD model. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Regarding Claim 19:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
identify movement of a cursor in the viewing window of the client computing system; (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
determine a set of proximate CAD model elements of the CAD model within a proximity distance from the cursor; and (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
further query the server computing system for interaction data of the proximate CAD model elements. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Regarding Claim 20:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Koylazov teaches:
identifying CAD model elements of the CAD model within the proximity distance from the cursor that also satisfy a secondary size criterion, (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
wherein more CAD model elements of the CAD model satisfy the secondary size criterion than the size criterion used to determine the candidate CAD model elements of the CAD model. (Koylazov displays a coarse resolution first being obtained from a server and displayed (0:12-0:18, image in the middle and text box on the left: "server mode"), then the position of the cursor is tracked, and then a finer resolution is sent for objects within a distance to the cursor (0:18-0:30).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Koylazov to the display system of Cote, in order to provide enhanced display functionality.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote (US 7283135 B1) in view of Koylazov (V-Ray "Track mouse while rendering" for progressive mode, cited by applicant on the IDS dated 11/05/2021 as Non-Patent Literature (NPL) document #1), and further in view of Buchowski (US20120105449A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Buchowski teaches:
querying the server computing system for selected interaction data of the candidate CAD faces based on a current CAD interaction operation for the CAD model. (Fig. 1A; ¶144; ¶147 the user may select a sub-assembly such as engine model 502. Responsive to the selection, the CAD application may load a modular structure of the engine model and graphics and geometry data of the engine. In some embodiments, the graphics data may comprise graphics data of only external or visible elements of the engine)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Buchowski to the display system of Cote, as this reduces both memory and processing requirements, and creates the potential for a executing a CAD application with access to a complete CAD model on devices with limited resources (Buchowski, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Buchowski teaches:
wherein the interaction data comprises edge data, snap point data, tangent chaining data, feature selection data, or geometry analytics data of the CAD model. (Fig. 1A; ¶144; ¶147 the user may select a sub-assembly such as engine model 502. Responsive to the selection, the CAD application may load a modular structure of the engine model and graphics and geometry data of the engine. In some embodiments, the graphics data may comprise graphics data of only external or visible elements of the engine)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Buchowski to the display system of Cote, as this reduces both memory and processing requirements, and creates the potential for a executing a CAD application with access to a complete CAD model on devices with limited resources (Buchowski, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 9:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Buchowski teaches:
query the server computing system for selected interaction data of the selected portion of the CAD model based on a current CAD interaction operation for the CAD model. (Fig. 1A; ¶144; ¶147 the user may select a sub-assembly such as engine model 502. Responsive to the selection, the CAD application may load a modular structure of the engine model and graphics and geometry data of the engine. In some embodiments, the graphics data may comprise graphics data of only external or visible elements of the engine)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Buchowski to the display system of Cote, as this reduces both memory and processing requirements, and creates the potential for a executing a CAD application with access to a complete CAD model on devices with limited resources (Buchowski, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Buchowski teaches:
wherein the interaction data comprises edge data, snap point data, tangent chaining data, feature selection data, or geometry analytics data of the CAD model. (Fig. 1A; ¶144; ¶147 the user may select a sub-assembly such as engine model 502. Responsive to the selection, the CAD application may load a modular structure of the engine model and graphics and geometry data of the engine. In some embodiments, the graphics data may comprise graphics data of only external or visible elements of the engine)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Buchowski to the display system of Cote, as this reduces both memory and processing requirements, and creates the potential for a executing a CAD application with access to a complete CAD model on devices with limited resources (Buchowski, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 16:
Cote does not teach in particular, but Buchowski teaches:
wherein the instructions cause the client computing system to query the server computing system for selected interaction data of the selected portion of the CAD model based on a current CAD interaction operation for the CAD model. (Fig. 1A; ¶144; ¶147 the user may select a sub-assembly such as engine model 502. Responsive to the selection, the CAD application may load a modular structure of the engine model and graphics and geometry data of the engine. In some embodiments, the graphics data may comprise graphics data of only external or visible elements of the engine)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the CAD display system features of Buchowski to the display system of Cote, as this reduces both memory and processing requirements, and creates the potential for a executing a CAD application with access to a complete CAD model on devices with limited resources (Buchowski, Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189