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 Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed may 25, 2026 on the requirement of restriction are persuasive. All the claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The Machine Bros Solutions (called MeshMixer1) (How to Add Thickness to STL Models with Meshmixer) in view of The Machine Bros Solutions (called MeshMixer2) (How to hollow out STL models with Meshmixer) and BOUVIER et al (US 20200134245).
As per claim 1, MeshMixer1 teaches the claimed “method of producing data representing a modified object based on data representing a reference object,” the method comprising: “accessing the data representing the reference object with a computer” (MeshMixer1, 0:33) -
PNG
media_image1.png
728
1239
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; “receiving an indication from a user to generate the modified object” (MeshMixer1, 0:39) –
PNG
media_image2.png
692
1233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; and “in response to the indication: generating a set of one or more offset surfaces based on the data representing the object, wherein the one or more offset surfaces are offset from surfaces of the reference object” (MeshMixer1, 0:47) -
PNG
media_image3.png
695
1228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and “wherein at least one of: B) the set of one or more offset surfaces defines a region having a surface to surface distance which is than a minimum thickness limit” (MeshMixer1, 0:51-1:00 – the thickness is variable)
PNG
media_image4.png
688
1236
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Furthermore, the MeshMixer2 teaches “generating an offset object, wherein generating the offset object comprises at least one of adding and removing one or more portions of at least one of the offset surfaces” (MeshMixer2, 6:24) -
PNG
media_image5.png
688
1225
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
694
1226
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and “generating the data representing the modified object, wherein generating the data representing the modified object comprises connecting the offset object to the reference object, wherein, at least partly because of the at least one of adding and removing of the one or more portions of at least one of the offset surfaces, the modified object both does not define an open surface and does not have a region thinner than the minimum thickness limit” (MeshMixer2, 9:17) -
PNG
media_image7.png
689
1225
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. It is noted that MeshMixer does not explicitly teach, but Bouvier teaches “A) the set of one or more offset surfaces comprises first and second offset surfaces respectively corresponding with first and second adjacent and connected surfaces of the reference object, wherein the first and second offset surfaces are adjacent and are not connected” (Bouvier, [0100], figure 24 - The issue is that offset surfaces of input adjacent faces may be separated or may intersect). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2 and Bouvier, to configure MeshMixer1’s method as claimed by graphic representing and manipulating the offset surfaces corresponding the reference object’s surfaces to generate a thickening version of the reference object. The motivation is improve the thickening an object by using the offset surfaces to simplify the graphic manipulation.
Claim 2 adds into claim 1 “wherein the reference object defines an open surface” (MeshMixer1, 0:33) -
PNG
media_image8.png
573
975
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 3 adds into claim 1 “wherein the modified object comprises an opening in a location corresponding with a location of an opening in the reference object” (MeshMixer1, 0:47) -
PNG
media_image3.png
695
1228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 4 adds into claim 1 “wherein the modified object is represented by a non-uniform rational basis line (NURBS) representation” which is well known in the art in which a NURBS (Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline) representation is a precise mathematical model used in computer graphics and CAD software to shape smooth 3D curves and surfaces and uses control points, weights, and knots to define both exact geometric shapes and freeform designs. Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2 and Bouvier, to configure MeshMixer1’s method as claimed by representing the object by a non-uniform rational basis line (NURBS) representation. The motivation is improve the visual representation of the smooth shape of 3D curves and surfaces.
Claim 5 adds into claim 1 “wherein connecting the offset object to the reference object comprises generating a connection surface which is connected to the offset object and is connected to the reference object” (MeshMixer1, 0:51-1:00 – the combination of the offset and reference objects)
PNG
media_image4.png
688
1236
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 6 adds into claim 1 “wherein the reference object has multiple openings, wherein the offset object has the same number of openings as the reference object, and wherein each opening of the offset object is in a location corresponding with the location of one of the openings in the reference object” (MeshMixer1, 0:47)
PNG
media_image3.png
695
1228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The Machine Bros Solutions (called MeshMixer1) (How to Add Thickness to STL Models with Meshmixer) in view of The Machine Bros Solutions (called MeshMixer2) (How to hollow out STL models with Meshmixer) and BOUVIER et al (US 20200134245), and further in view of Autodesk (Autodesk Meshmixer for 3D Printing).
Claim 7 adds into claim 1 “wherein generating the offset surfaces comprises generating a set of tessellated surfaces forming a point cloud” (Autodesk, 0:29) -
PNG
media_image9.png
689
1225
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, “wherein each of the tessellated surfaces corresponds with a surface of the reference object, and wherein each tessellated surface is offset form the corresponding surface of the refence object by an offset distance” (MeshMixer1, 0:47)
PNG
media_image3.png
695
1228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by using a set of tessellated surfaces forming a point cloud to represent the offset surfaces. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claim 8 adds into claim 7 “wherein a first tessellated surface is adjacent a second tessellated surface, and the first and second tessellated surfaces are separated by a gap, and wherein generating the offset object comprises: adding a plurality of points to the point cloud, wherein the added points are added in the gap such that the first and second tessellated surfaces are substantially connected by the added points” (Bouvier, [0100], figure 24 - The issue is that offset surfaces of input adjacent faces may be separated or may intersect). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by adding the points to fill a gap on graphical manipulation to represent the offset surfaces. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claim 9 adds into claim 7 “wherein a first tessellated surface is adjacent a second tessellated surface, and the first and second tessellated surfaces intersect along an intersection curve, and wherein generating the offset object comprises: removing a plurality of points of the first and second tessellated surfaces from the point cloud, whereby the remaining portions of the first and second tessellated surfaces terminate at the intersection curve” (Bouvier, [0100], figures 24-25 - The issue is that offset surfaces of input adjacent faces may be separated or may intersect). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by removing the overlap portion to simplify the graphical manipulation to represent the offset surfaces. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claim 10 adds into claim 7 “wherein a first tessellated surface is adjacent a second tessellated surface, and wherein portions of the first and second tessellated surfaces are closer than the minimum thickness limit, and wherein generating the offset object comprises: removing a plurality of points of the first and second tessellated surfaces from the point cloud, whereby all remaining points of the first tessellated surface are farther from the remaining points of the second tessellated surface than the minimum thickness limit, and whereby all remaining points of the second tessellated surface are farther from the remaining points of the first tessellated surface than the minimum thickness limit” which is obvious in graphic manipulation when creating the offset surfaces to avoid overlap of offset surfaces (Bouvier, [0100], figures 24-25 - The issue is that offset surfaces of input adjacent faces may be separated or may intersect). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by removing the overlap portion to simplify the graphical manipulation to represent the offset surfaces. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claim 11 adds into claim 10 “wherein removing the plurality of points from the first and second tessellated surfaces generates a point cloud hole in the point cloud, and wherein the method further comprises: generating a mesh from the point cloud, wherein the mesh comprises a mesh hole corresponding with the point cloud hole; and adding points to the mesh to fill in the mesh hole” (Autodesk, 0:22)
PNG
media_image10.png
686
1223
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by using a set of tessellated surfaces formed by added points to fill up a hole to represent the offset surfaces. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claim 12 adds into claim 11 “wherein generating the offset object further comprises smoothing the mesh” (Autodesk, 0:27-9:28)
PNG
media_image11.png
684
1224
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by smoothing the mesh by increasing the number of polygons of tessellated surfaces to represent the offset surfaces. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claim 13 adds into claim 12 “wherein generating the offset object further comprises generating a polygonal data representation predominantly formed by quadrilaterals based on the smoothed mesh” which is obvious in Autodesk’s smoothed triangular mesh with a similar smoothed quadrilateral mesh. The use of quad mesh and triangle mesh are well known in the art in which quad meshes use four-sided faces, while triangular meshes use three-sided faces; furthermore, quad meshes excel in clean edge loops, smooth animation deformation, and accurate stress analysis, whereas triangular meshes offer superior geometric flexibility for complex shapes and maximum computational efficiency for real-time rendering.
Claim 14 adds into claim 13 “wherein generating the offset object further comprises moving a plurality of vertices of the polygonal data representation so that the moved vertices are spaced apart from the reference surface by substantially the offset distance” (MeshMixer1, 0:47-1:00 – the thickness is variable)
PNG
media_image3.png
695
1228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 15 adds into claim 14 “wherein generating the offset object further comprises generating a BREP based on the polygon” (Bouvier, [0014] - the one or more lateral faces include one or more lateral ribbon faces, each lateral ribbon face being bounded by a respective boundary edge of the B-rep portion and a corresponding boundary edge of the B-rep offset, each lateral ribbon face adjacent to the boundary face and bounded by a respective boundary edge of the B-rep skin forming a respective second face). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by generating a BREP based on the polygon. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claim 16 adds into claim 7 “wherein generating the offset object further comprises: generating a mesh from the point cloud; and smoothing the mesh” (Autodesk, 0:27-9:28)
PNG
media_image11.png
684
1224
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by smoothing the mesh by increasing the number of polygons of tessellated surfaces to represent the offset surfaces. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claim 17 adds into claim 16 “wherein generating the offset object further comprises generating a polygonal data representation predominantly formed by quadrilaterals based on the smoothed mesh” which is obvious in Autodesk’s smoothed triangular mesh with a similar smoothed quadrilateral mesh. The use of quad mesh and triangle mesh are well known in the art in which quad meshes use four-sided faces, while triangular meshes use three-sided faces; furthermore, quad meshes excel in clean edge loops, smooth animation deformation, and accurate stress analysis, whereas triangular meshes offer superior geometric flexibility for complex shapes and maximum computational efficiency for real-time rendering.
Claim 18 adds into claim 17 “wherein generating the offset object further comprises moving a plurality of vertices of the polygonal data representation so that the moved vertices are spaced apart from the reference surface by substantially the offset distance” which is obvious when moving the reference surface by an offset distance (MeshMixer1, 0:47-1:00 – the thickness is variable)
PNG
media_image3.png
695
1228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 19 adds into claim 18 “wherein generating the offset object further comprises generating a BREP based on the polygon” (Bouvier, [0014] - the one or more lateral faces include one or more lateral ribbon faces, each lateral ribbon face being bounded by a respective boundary edge of the B-rep portion and a corresponding boundary edge of the B-rep offset, each lateral ribbon face adjacent to the boundary face and bounded by a respective boundary edge of the B-rep skin forming a respective second face). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of MeshMixer2, Bouvier, and Autodesk, to configure MeshMixer1 by generating a BREP based on the polygon. The motivation is to approximate complex shapes with connected polygons and coordinate points.
Claims 20 and 21 claim a method based on the method of claims 7-19; therefore, they are rejected under a similar rationale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7645. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Daniel F. Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/PHU K NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights