DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 6/18/2026. Claims 1-8 are 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 - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered and are partially withdrawn. Applicant has not thoroughly reviewed all claim language for compliance under 35 USC § 112 and the filed claim amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection.
See below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
The claims are replete with instances of lack of antecedent support. The following is to be considered exemplary of the issues present.
Claim 1, lines 15-16 recite “the gathered tessellated faced data” which should be “face data”
Claim 1, line 23, “the geometry data in the tessellation data” was previously “geometry data for the missing constraint”. It is unclear which geometry data this is referring to.
Claim 1, line 23 recites “the tessellation data” which was previously “viewer component tessellation data”. Consistency in terminology is required.
Claim 1, line 24 recites “the components and references” which lack antecedent support.
Claim 1, line 25 recites “tessellated data”; it is unclear if this should be “tessellation data” as was recited in line 23 or if it is referring to the “tessellated face data” of line 13
Claim 2, line 9 recites “the auto-repair command” which lacks antecedent support.
Claim 2, line 23 recites “the tessellation data” which was previously “viewer component tessellation data” in line 10. Consistency in terminology is required.
Claim 2, line 24, recites “the components and references” which lacks antecedent support.
Claim 2, line 25 recites “tessellated data”; it is unknown if this is referring to the “tessellated data for a plurality of assembly bodies” of line 7 or “the tessellation data” of line 23.
Claim 5, line 9 recites “the auto-repair command” which lacks antecedent support.
Claim 5, lines 10-11 recites “the component edge” which lacks antecedent support.
Claim 5, line 12 recites “each face of the component” which implies that multiple faces had been recited when they have not been.
Claim 5, line 16 recites “the gathered tessellated face” which lacks antecedent support.
Claim 5, line 24 recites “the geometry data in the tessellation data” which lacks antecedent support.
Claim 5, line 25 recites “the missing edge”, which was previously the “missing edge component feature entity type”.
Claim 5, line 26 recites “the same direction” and “the same start or end point” which lack antecedent support.
Claim 5, line 27 recites “the components and references” which lack antecedent support.
Claim 6, line 1 recites “the edge” when there was previously “missing edge”, “tessellated edge”, etc. It is unknown which edge this is.
Claim 7, line 1 recites “the edge” when there was previously “missing edge”, “tessellated edge”, etc. It is unknown which edge this is.
Claim 7, lines 1-2 recites “the geometry”. It is unknown which geometry this is of the numerous previously recited geometries.
Claim 8, the following lack antecedent support:
line 3, “the component”
line 4, “the assembly” was previously “the modeled assembly”
line 5, “the steps”
line 6, “the auto-repair command”
line 7, “the missing component vertex”
line 9, “the assembly” was previously “the modeled assembly” and there is a “for” missing between “data” and “each”
line 10, “the edge IDs”, “the tessellated data”, and “the assembly faces”
line 11, “the tessellated points”, “the graphical entity”
line 12, “the tessellated point data” and “the missing entity data”
line 13, “the geometry data”, “the tessellated candidate entity matches”, “the missing entity”, “the missing mate”
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Any indication of allowable subject matter is being held in abeyance pending the response to the extensive rejections required under 35 USC 112.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights