DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 17/818,964 filed 8/10/2022 which claims foreign priority to CN202011140700.2 filed on 10/22/2020. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment presented on 8/27/2025 which provides amendments to claims 1, 15, and 20, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-5 and 9-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 9-20 have been considered, however, they are not persuasive. Applicant contends the prior art does not disclose or suggest “generating and displaying respective identifications corresponding to the at least two parts to identify the at least two parts, wherein the identifications for identifying the at least two parts are numbered based on a generation order of the at least two parts generated by cutting the substrate”.
However, as best understood in light of the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection presented below, the Examiner maintains that at least the slice numbering of Bachrach is equivalent to the claimed “wherein the identification for identifying the at least two parts are numbered based on a generation order of the at least two parts generated by cutting the substrate.” As shown in the updated citations below, Bachrach describes the first and second slices as consecutive, and also labels the first slice (722) “1” and the second slice (724) “2” (Bachrach, [0055]). Therefore, at least these slices are numbered in the order they were generated as pieces of the 3D model. Thus, the rejections over Sole, Baudisch, and Bachrach are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly in claims 15 and 20), it is not clear what is meant by “…at least two parts are numbered based on a generation order of the at least two parts generated by cutting the substrate.” Specifically, the numbering is indefinite; for example, if a substrate is cut/split into two halves, it is not clear which half is numbered first, i.e., which half receives number “1” and which half receives number “2”. The specification does not appear to clarify this functionality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 9-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sole et al. (US 10,762,249; Filed: Jun. 21, 2018, hereinafter “Sole”), in view of Baudisch (US 2021/0287451 A1, filed 1/18/2019), and further in view of Bachrach et al. (US 2014/0253550 A1, hereafter referred to as “Bachrach”).
Regarding claim 1, Sole teaches a method for constructing a virtual assembly, applied to an electronic device with a display screen, More specifically, Sole discloses the present invention relates generally to a system for acquiring images of real stone slabs, visualize them virtually them in a 1:1. ratio, and design and view the final installation in 2D and 3D with the actual slabs instead of sample photography (Sole, abstract).
wherein the method comprises:
receiving a cutting operation instruction input by a user on a substrate, wherein the substrate is displayed in an operation region of a user interface on the display screen, and the cutting operation instruction is used to indicate a cutting path; Figure 13 depicts a user interface with various tools for designing a countertop (Sole, Figure 13). The Split tool 54 functionality is depicted in Figure 16, where a cutting path is displayed on a substrate (stone). This tool allows you to cut a figure in two. The usage of the tool works around using a slicing segment, which can be moved by the user by dragging any of the ends by clicking and dragging the handles (item 64) (Sole, col 11, lines 33-44).
displaying the cutting path on the substrate in the user interface and cutting the substrate displayed in the user interface into at least two parts through the cutting path by a processor, in response to the cutting operation instruction. More specifically, once the position for the cut is determined, the user just needs to click the split button (item 66) (Sole, col 11, lines 33-44). Figures 44 to 45 appear to show “There are now Two pieces” after the split command (Sole, Figures 44-45, zooming in enough on the Sole publication Figure 45 shows there is a line depicting the split represented by planned cut in Figure 44).
receiving an assembly instruction input by the user, assembling the at least two parts by the processor in response to the assembly instruction, and displaying the virtual assembly formed by assembling the at least two parts on the user interface, wherein the assembly instruction is used to indicate an assembly operation of the at least two parts; More specifically, if the user wants to move the selected piece (item 50) around they can drag it around and they will follow the mouse (Sole, col 11, lines 19-21, Figure 14). At least using the Boolean Add tool is construable as displaying an assembly operation. Figure 17 depicts the Boolean Add operation. The first step (item 68) is having two shapes overlapping or next to each other, when the tool is executed it will merge both of them creating a new one that is the sum of the previous two shapes (item 69) (Sole, col 11, lines 50-54). Sole’s Boolean Add step may not be describing the assembly of the specific pieces that were cut in the Splitting step, however, with the fact that the Split and Boolean Add tools are both available on the same user interface in Figure 13, Sole is clearly capable of cutting displayed substrate with the Splitting step, moving the pieces around as in Figure 14, and reassembling the pieces with the Boolean Add step.
However, Sole may not explicitly teach every aspect of
wherein before the receiving the assembly instruction input by the user, the method further comprises:
generating and displaying respective identifications corresponding to the at least two parts…; and
receiving a connector setting operation corresponding to one part of the at least two parts input by the user, wherein the connector setting operation further comprises: setting an installation position of a connector on the one part and/or setting a type of the connector;
Baudisch discloses 3D editors that treat contents as a set of “assemblies” that interact with each other (Baudisch, abstract). A cutting tool performs a cut through a substrate on the user interface in accordance with a user gesture (Baudisch, at least [0207], [0213], Figure 12). The cutting path is indicated on the substrate (Baudisch, Figures 12 and 59, [0336]). The connecting/assembling tool depicts the assembly of at least two parts (Baudisch, at least in Figures 60-63 and 80-84, [0335]-[0340], [0381]-[0382]). Assembly instructions are generated for the parts which includes labels and/or numbering that allows users reference labels/numbers during assembly (Baudisch, [0346]-[0352], the numbering is done with an ordering/enumerat[ion] and according to cutting). Specific gestures (line versus circle) at specific locations on parts results in the selection and placement of specific connector types (Baudisch, at least [0099]-[0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Sole and Baudisch that a method for constructing a virtual assembly would include labeling the parts according the to the cutting and assembly as well as the ability to select a connector position and type for assembly. With both Sole and Baudisch disclosing user interfaces for designing, cutting, and assembling real world objects, and with Baudisch additionally disclosing labeling the parts according the to the cutting and assembly as well as the ability to select a connector position and type for assembly, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for constructing a virtual assembly would include labeling the parts according the to the cutting and assembly as well as the ability to select a connector position and type for assembly in order to allow a user to reference specific parts during assembly and also utilize several different types of connections typical of manufacturing. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for constructing a virtual assembly.
However, Sole and Baudisch may not explicitly teach every aspect of
[the generating identifications] to identify the at least two parts, wherein the identification for identifying the at least two parts are numbered based on a generation order of the at least two parts generated by cutting the substrate.
Bachrach discloses a slicing engine that generates two or more slices of a virtual 3D model given a slice plane. The slicing engine then determines connection points on each of the slices that indicate how the 3D model is to be reconnected by the user when the 3D model is fabricated (Bachrach, abstract). The first slice and the second slice comprise consecutive slices associated with the 3D model resulting from the 3D model being sliced along at least one axis (Bachrach, [0025]). Given the slices of the 3D model and the connection locations associated with each unique pair of consecutive polygonal parts, the labeling module 126 generates a set of labels for each polygonal part included in the slices of the 3D model. A set of labels for a particular polygonal part includes a slice label that identifies the slice of the 3D model to which the part belongs and one or more connector labels identifying the connection locations associated with the pair of polygonal parts to which the part belongs (Bachrach, [0032]). Labeling (step 306) occurs after the slices are virtually created (step 302) (Bachrach, Figure 3). The first part 703 is labeled “1” and the second part 705 is labeled “2” (Bachrach, [0055], Figures 7D and 9). These “consecutive” slices are given numbers in order of creation as suggested by this citation and an alternative approach of “alphabetical ordering” (Bachrach, [0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach that a method for constructing a virtual assembly where parts are cut and labeled would include [the generating identifications] to identify the at least two parts, wherein the identification for identifying the at least two parts are numbered based on a generation order of the at least two parts generated by cutting the substrate, to identify the at least two parts. With Sole, Baudisch, and Bachrach disclosing computer systems for designing, cutting, and assembling real world objects, with both Baudisch and Bachrach disclosing labeling the parts according the to the cutting, and with Bachrach suggesting labels being created for slices of a 3D model reflecting the numerical order that the slices were sliced, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for constructing a virtual assembly would include [the generating identifications] to identify the at least two parts, wherein the identification for identifying the at least two parts are numbered based on a generation order of the at least two parts generated by cutting the substrate, to identify the at least two parts in order to make it easier for a user to keep the parts organized by an order of when the user interacted/cut the parts. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for constructing a virtual assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 1, wherein before the receiving the cutting operation instruction input by the user on the substrate, the method further comprises: receiving attribute information of the substrate input by the user on the user interface, and displaying the substrate corresponding to the attribute information in the operation region. More specifically, Sole discloses the initial selection of the material name, type, color, etc. (Sole, col 9, lines 3-17). Additionally, Baudisch discloses user selection and rendering of specific materials (Baudisch, [0193]).
Regarding claim 3, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 1, wherein before the receiving the cutting operation instruction input by the user on the substrate, the method further comprises: receiving a cutting start instruction input by the user, wherein the cutting start instruction is used to indicate an execution of the cutting operation. More specifically, selection of the split/cut tool (Baudisch, [0021], [0169], [0516], Figure 12)
Regarding claim 4, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 3, wherein the receiving the cutting start instruction input by the user comprises: receiving an operation for selecting a cutting function control by the user; or receiving an operation for selecting a key or key combination corresponding to the cutting start instruction by the user; or receiving a first operation corresponding to the cutting start instruction input by the user on the user interface, wherein the first operation comprises: a click, sliding or an air gesture. More specifically, the selection of the Split tool (Sole, col 11, lines 4-5). Additionally, the selection of the split/cut tool (Baudisch, [0021], [0169], [0516], Figure 12). The cutting tool performs a cut through a substrate on the user interface in accordance with a user gesture (Baudisch, at least [0207], [0213], Figure 12). The cutting path is indicated on the substrate (Baudisch, Figures 12 and 59, [0336]).
Regarding claim 5, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving the cutting operation instruction input by the user on the substrate comprises: receiving click operations by the user on the substrate, and determining a straight line between positions corresponding to two consecutive click operations as the cutting path; or receiving a sliding operation by the user on the substrate, and determining a sliding track corresponding to the sliding operation as the cutting path. More specifically, per Sole, dragging the handles on the ends of the cutting path (Sole, col 11, lines 39-41). Additionally, the selection of the split/cut tool (Baudisch, [0021], [0169], [0516], Figure 12). The cutting tool performs a cut through a substrate on the user interface in accordance with a user gesture (Baudisch, at least [0207], [0213], Figure 12). The cutting path is indicated on the substrate (Baudisch, Figures 12 and 59, [0336]).
Regarding claim 9, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 8, wherein the receiving the connector setting operation corresponding to one part of the at least two parts input by the user comprises: receiving an operation for selecting a connector setting control by the user, wherein the connector setting control corresponds to the type of the connector; and receiving an adding connector operation input by the user at a first position of the one part, and displaying the connector with the interface type corresponding to the connector setting control at the first position. More specifically, per Sole, Figure 20 depicts a user interface where two pieces of the counter top can be repositioned and or rotated (Sole, col 12, lines 28-38). Additionally, specific gestures (line versus circle) at specific locations on parts results in the selection and placement of specific connector types (Baudisch, at least [0099]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 10, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 9, wherein after the displaying the connector with the type of the connector corresponding to the connector setting control at the first position, the method further comprises: receiving a first operation by the user on the connector, and moving the connector from the first position to a second position, wherein the first operation is used to indicate a movement of the connector from the first position to the second position; and/or receiving a second operation by the user on the interface, and copying the connector to a third position, wherein the second operation is used to indicate a copy of the connector to the third position. More specifically, Sole teaches “....Drag: Allows to move the 2d shapes around....Copy and paste: Copy and paste...” (Sole, Column 7, lines 14, 37). Figure 20 depicts a user interface where two pieces of the counter top can be repositioned and or rotated (Sole, col 12, lines 28-38). Additionally, specific gestures (line versus circle) at specific locations on parts results in the selection and placement of specific connector types (Baudisch, at least [0099]-[0105]). FIG. 93 is a diagram illustrating an assembly after a connector has been added according to some embodiment. The addition may change the type of connector as desired: (a) Connector and a user dragging its top results in (b) the connector top to translate. (c) Further dragging may drag it past the edge of the object it is connected to (Baudisch, [0396]). The process of duplicating parts and connectors is illustrated in Figures 104-107 (Baudisch, [0410]-[0411]).
Regarding claim 11, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving the assembly instruction input by the user to assemble the at least two parts comprising: receiving an operation for selecting the connector of the one part by the user, and performing the assembly operation on the selected connector. Per sole, there are numerous preformed types of edge finishing for selection and placement that could be construed as interfaces (Sole, Figure 50. Col 50, line 65 0 col 51, line 2). Additionally, specific gestures (line versus circle) at specific locations on parts results in the selection and placement of specific connector types (Baudisch, at least [0099]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 12, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 11, wherein before the performing the assembly operation on the selected connector, the method further comprises: receiving an operation for selecting an assembly function control by the user, wherein the assembly function control is configured to indicate an execution of the assembly operation; or determining that a time interval between operations for selecting at least two connectors is less than a preset threshold. More specifically, “...Boolean tools: An user can do boolean operations on the shapes to merge them together...Boolean Operations to allow the user to perform basic boolean operations, like merge two pieces...” (Column 7, lines 30-31; Column 15, lines 36-38; Fig. 41 Boolean Add button). Additionally, specific gestures (line versus circle) at specific locations on parts results in the selection and placement of specific connector types (Baudisch, at least [0099]-[0105]). Assembly occurs after connectors are specified (Baudisch, at least Figures 81-89).
Regarding claim 13, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving a viewing instruction for the virtual assembly input by the user, and displaying the virtual assembly in multiple perspectives in response to the viewing instruction. More specifically, “...In case the user wants to see only of the two screens at a time he can press the Split/Left/right view buttons (item 80) to change the current view...” ( Sole, Column 12, lines 31-40). Additionally, a movement engine 20 performs movement operations on assemblies, such as tilt, rotation, and drag (Baudisch, [0170]).
Regarding claim 14, Sole and Baudisch with Bachrach teach the method according to claim 1, wherein before the receiving the cutting operation instruction input by the user on the substrate, the method further comprises: receiving a mapping operation of the user on the substrate, and displaying a map on the substrate. More specifically, textures/materials are mapped onto the substrate (Baudisch, [0193]-[0196], [0202], explicitly: “bump map”, “mip-mapping”, “shadow mapping”, etc.).
Regarding claims 15-19, these claims recite the electronic device that performs the steps of the method of claims 1-5, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions for performing the steps of the method of claim 1, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Kato (US 2006/0267974 A1) - modeling the cutting of parts pertaining to machining, labeling the cut out portion with a number increasing numerically (Kato, Figure 2).
Haeberli (US 6,819,966 B1) – parts cut are labeled numerically (Figure 5, items 74).
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 PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, 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, Matthew Ell can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171