DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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
Following Applicants arguments, the 102 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Pu is silent as to any distinction between visualized and non-visualized CAD parts of a CAD model.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees and points to the cited figures. While Pu does not recite this limitation in words, it is expressly shown in the figures. Looking at figures 5 and 7, each of the 2D images are pulled out of the repository shown in figure 2, and given a black or white bounding box. This can also be seen in figure 3 with a yellow bounding box on the red drawn figures. Then the images are retrieved and visualized as seen in the black boxes of figure 3, and the components of figure 8. These elements are parts as they are noted in the figures as bolts, shafts, pipes, plates, gears and disks. This is in line with specification 17, which states that “a 2D image of the view of the CAD model rendered using the bounding boxes for the non-visualized CAD parts instead of rendered using visualization data (e.g., 3D geometry).” This is expressly shown by the figures cited in the office action and mentioned above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification. If Applicant would like the claim to be interpreted differently, such subject matter should be expressly written into the claims. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Pu does not use bounding boxes for non-visualized CAD parts.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as figure 3 uses a yellow bounding box, figure 5 uses a white bounding box, and figure 7 uses a white bounding box for individual parts and then colored bounding boxes for groups. Additionally, Applicant’s argument states that Pu does use bounding boxes in “Pu uses "bounding boxes" to represent search spaces in an octree structure based on similarity of different CAD models in the repository. Note that in Pu, these "bounding boxes" …” This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Pu fails to teach or suggest any of the specific bounding box and color assignment features of claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees because as discussed above, Pu does teach the use of bounding boxes. The claim does not specify what color the bounding boxes must be. As white is a color, it does anticipate the claimed limitation. With regard to color, something must be shown, or it would be a blank page. Here bounding boxes and components can be identified on the page, making them colored. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments seem to suggest that Pu does anticipate all of these features. As noted above, Pu anticipates bounding boxes. With regard to color assignments, “the thumbnails in Pu are visualized with a certain color.” This argument is not persuasive.
Thus, the 102 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pu et al. “Navigation and Discovery in 3D CAD Repositories.”
Regarding claim 1, Pu anticipates A method comprising: visualizing, by a client computing system, a view of a computer-aided design (CAD) model in an application window, (Figures 1-3, 5, 7-8, the cad model is shown in multiple figures and a key part of the framework)
wherein the CAD model is comprised of CAD parts and wherein the CAD parts are discrete components of the CAD model, (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, parts of the total cad model are shown)
including by: accessing bounding box data for non-visualized CAD parts of the CAD model, (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, each cad model in the repository is shown with a bounding box)
wherein the non-visualized CAD parts comprise CAD parts of the CAD model for which visualization data has not been retrieved by the client computing system and (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, the image shown is representative of what is in the cad repository before it hits the visualization engine)
wherein the bounding box data for the non-visualized CAD parts represent a respective bounding box for the non-visualized CAD parts of the CAD model; (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, each bounding box is a respective bounding box for the cad parts that can be parts of the visualized model)
assigning a color value to each of the bounding boxes of the non-visualized CAD parts; (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, a color is assigned to the bounding box)
capturing a 2D image of the view of the CAD model in which the non-visualized CAD parts are rendered as the bounding boxes of the non-visualized CAD parts instead of rendered as a 3D geometry of the non-visualized CAD parts; (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, Mapping to lower dimensions, Navigating 3D space, Improving 3D space navigation, a 2d image is used in the bounding box instead of the 3D geometry)
analyzing the 2D image to identify pixel colors present in the 2D image to determine visible CAD parts in the view of the CAD model, (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, each part has a color, including a bounding box color that is used to describe different parts)
wherein the visible CAD parts correspond to bounding boxes of non-visualized CAD parts determined as visible based on the identified pixel colors; (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, components of the 3D model are not shown in the 2D identified colors)
retrieving visualization data for the visible CAD parts; and (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, data is retrieved to be used by the visualization engine)
visualizing, in the application window, the visible CAD parts in the view of the CAD model via the retrieved visualization data. (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, the cad parts are shown that are retrieved from the CAD repository)
Regarding claim 3, Pu anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Pu also anticipates comprising iteratively performing the capturing, the analyzing, the retrieving, and the visualizing until an ending criterion is reached. (Automating navigation, Interactive navigation, Evaluation, multiple sets are explored until the desired model is shown)
Regarding claim 4, Pu anticipates the limitations of claim 3. Pu also anticipates wherein, in a given iteration, assigning comprises: assigning a pixel color to each of the bounding boxes of the non-visualized CAD parts of the CAD model; and assigning a pixel color to each visible CAD part of the CAD model. (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, pixel colors are assigned to bounding boxes and visible cad models)
Regarding claim 5, Pu anticipates the limitations of claim 3. Pu also anticipates wherein, in a given iteration, capturing comprises capturing a 2D image of the view of the CAD model rendered using the bounding boxes for the non-visualized CAD parts instead of rendered using the visualization data of the non-visualized CAD parts and also rendered using the visualization data of the visible CAD parts of the CAD model (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, a 2D image is shown in the bounding box for something that is not shown yet, then visualization of the cad part is shown as part of the CAD model.)
In regards to claim 8, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Pu anticipates the limitations of claim 8. Pu also anticipates wherein the model visualization engine is configured to render the 2D image of the view of the CAD model as a background image that is not visualized in the application window. (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, multiple 2D images are shown as background images that are not yet visualized in the application window)
In regards to claim 10, it is the system embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 11, it is the system embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 12, it is the system embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 15, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 16, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 9 with similar limitations to claim 9, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 9.
In regards to claim 17, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 18, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 19, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu in view of Leff et al. USPAT 8,880,549.
Regarding claim 2, Pu anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Pu teaches comprising accessing the bounding box data for the non-visualized CAD parts and retrieving the visualization data for the visible CAD parts from a … server … to the client computing system. (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, the data for the bounding box is retrieved from a server CAD repository)
Pu does not explicitly teach a cloud server remote
Leff teaches a cloud server remote (Column 5 Lines 3-8, the application server 106 may be virtualized on a cloud computing service.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Pu with Leff as the references deal with accessing data in a database, in order to implement a system that gets data from a cloud server. Leff would modify Pu by getting data from a remote cloud server. The benefit of doing so is the load can be balanced. (Leff Column 5 Lines 3-8)
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu in view of Esquivel et al. USPPN 2019/0278982.
Regarding claim 6, Pu anticipates the limitations of claim 3. Pu does not explicitly teach wherein the ending criterion is reached when the 2D image does not include any pixel color assigned to the bounding boxes of the non-visualized CAD parts of the CAD model.
Esquivel teaches wherein the ending criterion is reached when the 2D image does not include any pixel color assigned to the bounding boxes of the non-visualized CAD parts of the CAD model. ([0022], when there are no more pixel colors in the bounding box or the image that match the threshold, the system stops)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Pu with Esquivel as the references deal with clasifying data, in order to implement a system that stops when a pixel color is not included. Esquivel would modify Pu by that stopping when a pixel color is not included. The benefit of doing so is content that is not needed, is removed. (Esquivel [0022])
In regards to claim 13, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 20, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu in view of Christoph et al. USPPN 2008/0075227.
Regarding claim 7, Pu anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Pu teaches with the visible CAD parts visualized in the application window. (Figures 2, 3, 5, 7-8, the cad parts are visualized in an application window)
Pu does not explicitly teach further comprising setting an image resolution of the 2D image to be lesser than an image resolution of the view of the CAD model
Christoph teaches further comprising setting an image resolution of the 2D image to be lesser than an image resolution of the view of the CAD model ([0110], the 2D image is a lower resolution than the full 3D cad model)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Pu with Christoph as the references deal with computer data, in order to implement a system that uses lower resolution 2D images. Christoph would modify Pu by using lower resolution 2D images. The benefit of doing so is in this way, computation can be performed faster, because a lower resolution can be used at first without requiring resolution to be sacrificed in the end. In fact, resolution can even be surpassed. (Christoph [0111])
In regards to claim 14, it is the system embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bustos et al. “Content-Based 3D Object Retrieval”: Also teaches using 2D images with bounding boxes to describe a 3D image of a model.
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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188