DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 2 December 2022 are objected to because:
Figure 12C fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), which states:
(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
Figure 12C includes reference characters (1240) and (1250) which are not mentioned in the description. Specification page 21 lines 29-30 states “Then the method may split the volumetric B-Rep in two volumes
1040 and 1050.” Which appears to include typographic error for these respective reference characters.
Fig. 2B fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m), which states:
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Figure 2B includes solid black shading areas.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification page 8 lines 24-25 state “trail-and-error” which appears to be typographic error for “trial-and-error.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 8-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria.” It is unclear how to perform this ranking. The claim specifies neither the result to be achieved nor the process of how to achieve it. The ranking is somehow based on the geometrical criteria but neither the basis for how to use the geometrical criteria nor what the geometrical criteria actually are is defined by the claim. Claim 1 is not limited to the specific examples recited in the Specification or dependent claim 2.
Claim 2 cures the noted indefiniteness by clarifying the geometrical criteria used by the ranking.
Claims 8-12 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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 without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A computer-implemented method for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part, the method comprising:
…
detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle;
ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons; and
selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons, the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons:
partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and
for each obtained partition, determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume.
Partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical operation. Overall, an algorithm for partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical algorithm.
Detecting ribbons with connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle is a mathematical evaluation of the mathematical condition of being “homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Note, Specification page 15 lines 24-27 specifically identifies being homeomorphic with a rectangle as within “the field of topology.” Topology is a subfield within mathematics.
Ranking geometric criteria is explicitly mathematical within the field of geometry and by comparison of respective mathematical condition.
Partitioning the volumetric B-Rep CAD 3D model using a splitting method and geometrical criteria is an explicit invocation of mathematical methods. This splitting method partitioning is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
Determining whether or not the partition is “sweepable” is a determination of another mathematical criteria. See also Spec. page 7 lines 8-10 defining “a sweepable volume.”
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
obtaining a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model;
Obtaining a volumetric B-rep of the model is a generic recitation of data gathering for necessary data input. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 14 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more geometrical criteria associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons are selected among: the detected ribbon is a depression, the detected ribbon is a protrusion, the detected ribbon is closed, and/or the detected ribbon has a revolution.
The geometric shapes of a: depression, protrusion, being “closed,” and having a revolution are mathematical geometric characteristics. Evaluating these geometrical criteria is further recitation of mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 2 and 14 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 2 and 14 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one more geometrical criteria comprises ranking the detected ribbons in the following ranking order:
a) the detected ribbon is closed and is a protrusion,
b) the detected ribbon is closed and is depression,
c) the detected ribbon is a protrusion,
d) the detected ribbon is a depression, and
e) the detected ribbon is a revolution.
These geometric criteria being a protrusion, depression, or revolution are geometric shapes with geometric definitions within mathematics. Reciting additional mathematical subject matter remains a mathematical concept.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein for each detected ribbon ranked according to a) or c) the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method further comprises:
isolating the protrusion from the rest of the volumetric B-Rep by:
selecting a concave neighbor of the ribbon, and
extrapolating the concave neighbor up through the volumetric B-Rep.
This isolation of the protrusion is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
Selecting and extrapolating a concave neighbor are mathematical steps of the mathematical algorithm.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein for each detected ribbon ranked according to b) the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method comprises:
determining whether the detected ribbon has a large impact, the detected ribbon having a large impact if the detected ribbon has a size smaller than a distance between the ribbon and an intersection between the volumetric B-Rep and an extrapolation of the detected ribbon, and
creating a splitting surface which is an offset of a convex neighbor of the ribbon if the detected ribbon has a large impact.
Determining a size with a distance comparison of the geometry is a mathematical operation of geometry.
Creation of the splitting surface is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 5 and 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 5 and 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 6, 17, and 18 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein for each detected ribbon ranked according to d) the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method comprises:
creating a splitting surface by extrapolating the ribbon up through the volumetric B-Rep.
Creation of the splitting surface is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 6, 17, and 18 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 6, 17, and 18 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 7, 19, and 20 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein for each detected ribbon ranked according to e) the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method comprises:
splitting a volume enclosed by the ribbon into three volumes one of which is a cylinder.
Splitting the volume is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 7, 19, and 20 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 7, 19, and 20 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep further comprises:
detecting one or more smooth surfaces, each detected smooth surface comprising a group of connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep, each pair of connected faces in the group having a smooth junction;
selecting one or more square smooth surfaces among the detected one or more smooth surfaces, each square smooth surface being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle; and
detecting ribbons by selecting a set of one or more connected surfaces of the one or more detected square smooth surfaces, each detected ribbon having a width of one of the one or more selected connected surfaces.
Detecting a smooth surface is an evaluation of respective mathematical criteria defining a surface as smooth.
Selecting a square smooth surface which is homeomorphic to a rectangle is further recitation of mathematical evaluation.
Detecting ribbons by selecting a connected surface of the square smooth surfaces having a width is further recitation of mathematical evaluation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein, for each of the one or more detected smooth surfaces, an angle between each two connected faces is larger than or equal to 150 degrees and smaller than or equal to 210 degrees.
An evaluation of the angle being between 150 and 210 degrees is a mathematical evaluation of the mathematical value.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The computer-implemented method of any of claim 1, wherein the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method further comprises, for each obtained partition, computing one or more traces, a trace being a set of one or more edges residing on a face of the obtained partition, each of the one or more edges created as results of partitioning.
Computing traces corresponding with sets of edges on a face of the partition is a mathematical operation selecting a subset with respective mathematical properties of geometry.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume comprises, for each obtained partition:
determining a start surface and a target surface, each of the start surface and the target surface being neighbor to a ranked ribbon;
determining a sweep path on the ranked ribbon; and
determining that there exists a sweep from the start surface to the target surface along the sweep path, thereby determining the partition represents a sweepable volume.
Determining a start and target surface neighboring a ranked ribbon corresponds to further mathematical evaluation.
Determining a sweep path is further mathematical evaluation.
Determining the existence of a sweep path from the start surface to the target surface is further mathematical evaluation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, for each selected ribbons and after the obtaining two or more partitions, verifying that an angle between each two edges created as results of the partitioning is larger than or equal a quality angle.
Verifying an angle according to a qualifying angle is a mathematical evaluation of geometry.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 13 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
… a computer-implemented method for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part, the method comprising:
…
detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle;
ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons; and
selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons, the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons:
partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and
for each obtained partition, determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume.
Partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical operation. Overall, an algorithm for partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical algorithm.
Detecting ribbons with connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle is a mathematical evaluation of the mathematical condition of being “homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Note, Specification page 15 lines 24-27 specifically identifies being homeomorphic with a rectangle as within “the field of topology.” Topology is a subfield within mathematics.
Ranking geometric criteria is explicitly mathematical within the field of geometry and by comparison of respective mathematical condition.
Partitioning the volumetric B-Rep CAD 3D model using a splitting method and geometrical criteria is an explicit invocation of mathematical methods. This splitting method partitioning is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
Determining whether or not the partition is “sweepable” is a determination of another mathematical criteria. See also Spec. page 7 lines 8-10 defining “a sweepable volume.”
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
13. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program that when executed by a computer causes the computer to implement …
obtaining a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model;
Obtaining a volumetric B-rep of the model is a generic recitation of data gathering for necessary data input. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The computer-readable storage medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) 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. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 13 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) are analyzed the same in step 2B as in step 2A(ii) above.
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
15. A system comprising:
… for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part
…
detect one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle,
rank the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons; and
selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons, the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons, the processor being configured to:
partition the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and
for each obtained partition, determine whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume.
Partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical operation. Overall, an algorithm for partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical algorithm.
Detecting ribbons with connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle is a mathematical evaluation of the mathematical condition of being “homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Note, Specification page 15 lines 24-27 specifically identifies being homeomorphic with a rectangle as within “the field of topology.” Topology is a subfield within mathematics.
Ranking geometric criteria is explicitly mathematical within the field of geometry and by comparison of respective mathematical condition.
Partitioning the volumetric B-Rep CAD 3D model using a splitting method and geometrical criteria is an explicit invocation of mathematical methods. This splitting method partitioning is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
Determining whether or not the partition is “sweepable” is a determination of another mathematical criteria. See also Spec. page 7 lines 8-10 defining “a sweepable volume.”
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program … that when executed by the processor causes the processor to be configured to:
obtain a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model,
Obtaining a volumetric B-rep of the model is a generic recitation of data gathering for necessary data input. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The processor, memory, GUI is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) are analyzed the same in step 2B as in step 2A(ii) above.
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 8-12
Claims 1 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by US patent 7,05,0951 B1 Tautges, et al. (cited in IDS dated 2 December 2022) [herein “Tautges”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A computer-implemented method for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle. Splitting the large mesh into independent pieces is a partitioning of the model.
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising: obtaining a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model.” Tautges column 4 lines 37-38 disclose “One begins with a geometric solid defined by a BREP or boundary representation model.”
Claim 1 further recites “detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle.
Claim 1 further recites “ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons.” Tautges column 13 lines 31-39 disclose:
The volumes in FIG. 10 can be meshed in an order that avoids any of the above difficulties; for this example, the order is volume 3, 4, 2 then 1. In fact, one can build this order automatically by traversing the connected volumes over their source and target surface lists. The method of the invention for this traversal, referred to as "automatic sweep grouping", is shown in Table 2.
Ordering the volumes is a ranking of those volumes. The criteria of the automatic sweep grouping algorithm are geometric criteria associated with the detected sweep paths.
Claim 1 further recites “and selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons.” Tautges column 13 lines 31-39 disclose:
The volumes in FIG. 10 can be meshed in an order that avoids any of the above difficulties; for this example, the order is volume 3, 4, 2 then 1. In fact, one can build this order automatically by traversing the connected volumes over their source and target surface lists. The method of the invention for this traversal, referred to as "automatic sweep grouping", is shown in Table 2.
Ordering the volumes is a ranking of those volumes. The criteria of the automatic sweep grouping algorithm are geometric criteria associated with the detected sweep paths.
Claim 1 further recites “the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons: partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and for each obtained partition, determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle. Splitting the large mesh into independent pieces is a partitioning of the model. Identifying the volumes as sweep paths is a determination that they are sweepable.
Tautges column 14 lines 32-35 disclose “Another application of auto sweep detect is to filter a large group of volumes into sweepable and non-sweepable ones; this allows the user to quickly determine which volumes are not meshable and need to be decomposed further.” Filtering the volumes into sweepable and non-sweepable volumes is determining whether respective partitions are sweepable.
Claim 8 further recites “8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep further comprises: detecting one or more smooth surfaces, each detected smooth surface comprising a group of connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep, each pair of connected faces in the group having a smooth junction.” Tautges column 8 lines 14-17 disclose:
by the definition of a chain, every edge assigned the traversal parameter is shared by two surfaces in the chain; thus, the surfaces in the chain can be unrolled to form a contiguous submapped or mapped mesh.
A chain which can be unrolled into a contiguous mesh corresponds with each pair of connected faces across the ribbon having a ‘smooth’ surface. Being contiguous corresponds with at least one reasonable definition of smooth in this context.
Claim 8 further recites “selecting one or more square smooth surfaces among the detected one or more smooth surfaces, each square smooth surface being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. Tautges column 8 lines 14-17 disclose:
by the definition of a chain, every edge assigned the traversal parameter is shared by two surfaces in the chain; thus, the surfaces in the chain can be unrolled to form a contiguous submapped or mapped mesh.
The sweep paths chains in particular are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle. Tautges column 10 lines 34-36 disclose “some implementations require the linking surfaces to all be mappable (having only 4 sides).” Having four sides is part of being homeomorphic with a rectangle.
Claim 8 further recites “and detecting ribbons by selecting a set of one or more connected surfaces of the one or more detected square smooth surfaces, each detected ribbon having a width of one of the one or more selected connected surfaces.” Tautges column 8 lines 14-17 disclose:
by the definition of a chain, every edge assigned the traversal parameter is shared by two surfaces in the chain; thus, the surfaces in the chain can be unrolled to form a contiguous submapped or mapped mesh.
A chain of surfaces is a set of connected surfaces. Each part of the chain where edges are shared by two surfaces of the chain indicates each part of the ribbon has a width of one surface. Thus, each part of the chain has a same width of one surface wide.
Claim 9 further recites “9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein, for each of the one or more detected smooth surfaces, an angle between each two connected faces is larger than or equal to 150 degrees and smaller than or equal to 210 degrees.” Tautges column 9 lines 30-35 disclose “hexes with interior angles of 180 degrees are of insufficient quality. …. Additional constraints are needed to improve mesh quality.” Tautges column 9 lines 45-52 disclose:
Assuming that an ideal hex element is one whose angles 45 are all 90 degrees, each of the vertex types in FIG. 2 (and the corresponding volume edge types) has a corresponding ideal angle; these angles are 90, 180, 270 and 360 degrees for End, Side, Corner and Reversal types, respectively. Around these ranges are "fuzzy" regions, approximately 45 degrees on either side of the ideal, within which hex quality is degraded but not inadequate.
These ideal angles and corresponding range defined by the fuzzy regions are quality angles for respective vertex types including end, side, and corner types. The constraint on side types of
180
±
45
°
is an angle range (135, 225) substantially similar to the claimed range of between 150 to 210. See MPEP §2144.05 regarding obviousness for similar and overlapping ranges.
Claim 10 further recites “10. The computer-implemented method of any of claim 1, wherein the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method further comprises, for each obtained partition, computing one or more traces, a trace being a set of one or more edges residing on a face of the obtained partition, each of the one or more edges created as results of partitioning.” Tautges column 8 lines 14-17 disclose:
by the definition of a chain, every edge assigned the traversal parameter is shared by two surfaces in the chain; thus, the surfaces in the chain can be unrolled to form a contiguous submapped or mapped mesh.
A chain which can be unrolled into a contiguous mesh corresponds with each pair of connected faces across the ribbon having a ‘smooth’ surface. The edges assigned traversal by the chain correspond with one or more edges generated as a result of the splitting method.
Tautges column 7 lines 29-34 disclose:
The side (linking) surfaces generated by sweeping one or more contiguous sets of mesh faces into a third dimension are mapped if the boundary of the regions being added or subtracted from the sweep do not intersect the original boundary of the sweep, or submapped if the boundaries do intersect.
The boundary of the regions from the sweep are a set of one or more edges residing on face(s) of the obtained partition.
Claim 11 further recites “11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume comprises, for each obtained partition: determining a start surface and a target surface, each of the start surface and the target surface being neighbor to a ranked ribbon.” Tautges column 13 lines 31-39 disclose:
The volumes in FIG. 10 can be meshed in an order that avoids any of the above difficulties; for this example, the order is volume 3, 4, 2 then 1. In fact, one can build this order automatically by traversing the connected volumes over their source and target surface lists. The method of the invention for this traversal, referred to as "automatic sweep grouping", is shown in Table 2.
Ordering the volumes is a ranking of those volumes. The source and target surfaces correspond with a start and target surface for the sweepable volume. Tautges column 7 lines 4-5 disclose “source and target surfaces are defined by the starting and ending surface(s) in the sweep.”
Claim 11 further recites “determining a sweep path on the ranked ribbon.” Tautges column 4 lines 29-30 disclose “Parts of the auto sweep detect method may also be used to identify independent sweep paths.”
Claim 11 further recites “and determining that there exists a sweep from the start surface to the target surface along the sweep path, thereby determining the partition represents a sweepable volume.” Tautges column 8 lines 49-52 disclose “Theorem 1: A volume is sweepable only if: … for each set of contiguous source/target surfaces, traversing over.” Traversing a set of contiguous source/target surface shows there exists a sweep from the source to the target along the respective sweep path.
Claim 12 further recites “12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, for each selected ribbons and after the obtaining two or more partitions, verifying that an angle between each two edges created as results of the partitioning is larger than or equal a quality angle.” Tautges column 9 lines 30-35 disclose “hexes with interior angles of 180 degrees are of insufficient quality. …. Additional constraints are needed to improve mesh quality.” Tautges column 9 lines 45-52 disclose:
Assuming that an ideal hex element is one whose angles 45 are all 90 degrees, each of the vertex types in FIG. 2 (and the corresponding volume edge types) has a corresponding ideal angle; these angles are 90, 180, 270 and 360 degrees for End, Side, Corner and Reversal types, respectively. Around these ranges are "fuzzy" regions, approximately 45 degrees on either side of the ideal, within which hex quality is degraded but not inadequate.
These ideal angles and corresponding range defined by the fuzzy regions are quality angles for respective vertex types including end, side, and corner types. Applying a constraint on these angles corresponds with verifying an angle is larger or equal to the lower bound of the quality range of the respective fuzzy region.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13 and 15
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 7,05,0951 B1 Tautges, et al. (cited in IDS dated 2 December 2022) [herein “Tautges”] in view of US patent no. 11,886,165 B2 Marinov, et al. [herein “Marinov”].
Claim 13 recites “13. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program that when executed by a computer causes the computer to implement a computer-implemented method.” Tautges claim 12 teaches “computer software.”
Tautges does not explicitly disclose components of a computer; however, in analogous art of CAD Brep, Marinov column teaches “The data processing apparatus 1400 also includes hardware or firmware devices including one or more processors 1412, one or more additional devices 1414, a non-transitory computer readable medium 1416, a communication interface 1418, and one or more user interface devices 1420.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tautges and Marinov. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a computer data processing apparatus into the system of automatic detection of sweep-meshable volumes for the advantageous purpose of providing hardware suitable for implementing computer aided design (CAD) software.
Claim 13 further recites “for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle. Splitting the large mesh into independent pieces is a partitioning of the model.
Claim 13 further recites “the method comprising: obtaining a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model.” Tautges column 4 lines 37-38 disclose “One begins with a geometric solid defined by a BREP or boundary representation model.”
Claim 13 further recites “detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle.
Claim 13 further recites “ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons.” Tautges column 13 lines 31-39 disclose:
The volumes in FIG. 10 can be meshed in an order that avoids any of the above difficulties; for this example, the order is volume 3, 4, 2 then 1. In fact, one can build this order automatically by traversing the connected volumes over their source and target surface lists. The method of the invention for this traversal, referred to as "automatic sweep grouping", is shown in Table 2.
Ordering the volumes is a ranking of those volumes. The criteria of the automatic sweep grouping algorithm are geometric criteria associated with the detected sweep paths.
Claim 13 further recites “and selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons.” Tautges column 13 lines 31-39 disclose:
The volumes in FIG. 10 can be meshed in an order that avoids any of the above difficulties; for this example, the order is volume 3, 4, 2 then 1. In fact, one can build this order automatically by traversing the connected volumes over their source and target surface lists. The method of the invention for this traversal, referred to as "automatic sweep grouping", is shown in Table 2.
Ordering the volumes is a ranking of those volumes. The criteria of the automatic sweep grouping algorithm are geometric criteria associated with the detected sweep paths.
Claim 13 further recites “the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons: partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and for each obtained partition, determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle. Splitting the large mesh into independent pieces is a partitioning of the model. Identifying the volumes as sweep paths is a determination that they are sweepable.
Tautges column 14 lines 32-35 disclose “Another application of auto sweep detect is to filter a large group of volumes into sweepable and non-sweepable ones; this allows the user to quickly determine which volumes are not meshable and need to be decomposed further.” Filtering the volumes into sweepable and non-sweepable volumes is determining whether respective partitions are sweepable.
Claim 15 recites “15. A system comprising: a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program.” Tautges claim 12 teaches “computer software.”
Tautges does not explicitly disclose components of a computer; however, in analogous art of CAD Brep, Marinov column teaches “The data processing apparatus 1400 also includes hardware or firmware devices including one or more processors 1412, one or more additional devices 1414, a non-transitory computer readable medium 1416, a communication interface 1418, and one or more user interface devices 1420.” Marinov column 29 lines 40-42 disclose “a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tautges and Marinov. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a computer data processing apparatus into the system of automatic detection of sweep-meshable volumes for the advantageous purpose of providing hardware suitable for implementing computer aided design (CAD) software.
Claim 15 further recites “for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part that when executed by the processor.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle. Splitting the large mesh into independent pieces is a partitioning of the model.
Claim 15 further recites “causes the processor to be configured to: obtain a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model.” Tautges column 4 lines 37-38 disclose “One begins with a geometric solid defined by a BREP or boundary representation model.”
Claim 15 further recites “detect one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle.
Claim 15 further recites “rank the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons.” Tautges column 13 lines 31-39 disclose:
The volumes in FIG. 10 can be meshed in an order that avoids any of the above difficulties; for this example, the order is volume 3, 4, 2 then 1. In fact, one can build this order automatically by traversing the connected volumes over their source and target surface lists. The method of the invention for this traversal, referred to as "automatic sweep grouping", is shown in Table 2.
Ordering the volumes is a ranking of those volumes. The criteria of the automatic sweep grouping algorithm are geometric criteria associated with the detected sweep paths.
Claim 15 further recites “and selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons.” Tautges column 13 lines 31-39 disclose:
The volumes in FIG. 10 can be meshed in an order that avoids any of the above difficulties; for this example, the order is volume 3, 4, 2 then 1. In fact, one can build this order automatically by traversing the connected volumes over their source and target surface lists. The method of the invention for this traversal, referred to as "automatic sweep grouping", is shown in Table 2.
Ordering the volumes is a ranking of those volumes. The criteria of the automatic sweep grouping algorithm are geometric criteria associated with the detected sweep paths.
Claim 15 further recites “the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons, the processor being configured to: partition the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and for each obtained partition, determine whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume.” Tautges column 15 lines 15-21 disclose:
The method can be used to identify independent sweep paths, for use in volume-based interval assignment. The automatic sweep grouping method is also been useful for resolving sweep dependencies, and therefore reducing interactive time meshing large assemblies. It is also useful for splitting large meshing jobs into independent pieces which can be meshed concurrently by multiple users.
Identifying sweep paths correspond with detecting ribbons. The sweep paths are a series of connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle. Splitting the large mesh into independent pieces is a partitioning of the model. Identifying the volumes as sweep paths is a determination that they are sweepable.
Tautges column 14 lines 32-35 disclose “Another application of auto sweep detect is to filter a large group of volumes into sweepable and non-sweepable ones; this allows the user to quickly determine which volumes are not meshable and need to be decomposed further.” Filtering the volumes into sweepable and non-sweepable volumes is determining whether respective partitions are sweepable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 14, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US patent 7,05,0951 B1 Tautges, et al. (cited in IDS dated 2 December 2022) [herein “Tautges”] teaches automatic detection of sweep-meshable volumes. Tautges column 8 lines 14-17 disclose “by the definition of a chain, every edge assigned the traversal parameter is shared by two surfaces in the chain; thus, the surfaces in the chain can be unrolled to form a contiguous submapped or mapped mesh.” Tautges column 10 lines 1-2 teach “The ‘standard’ sweep algorithm allows the extrusion of one surface (the ‘source’ surface) onto a single ‘target’ surface.” Tautges column 8 line 49 theorem 1 defines whether volumes are sweepable. But Tautges fails to teach a criteria of the detected ribbon is a depression, protrusion, closed, or has a revolution.
US patent no. 11,886,165 B2 Marinov, et al. [herein “Marinov”] teaches converting generative design geometry to editable watertight boundary representation in CAD. Marinov column 8 lines 34-36 teaches “the input generative mesh 405 is partitioned into a mesh partitioning 410.” Marinov fails to teach a criteria of the detected ribbon is a depression, protrusion, closed, or has a revolution.
US patent no. 7,733,339 B2 Laning, et al. [herein “Laning”] partitioning CAD models into sub-parts for analysis. Laning column 7 lines 7-8 teaches “slicing tool commands the solid-modeler to partition the part geometry along multiple candidate slicing surfaces.” Laning fails to teach a criteria of a detected ribbon is a depression, protrusion, closed, or has a revolution.
Provatidis, C. “A Review on Attempts towards CAD/CAE Integration Using Macroelements” Computational Research, vol. 1, issue 3, pp. 61-84 (2013) [herein “Provatidis”] page 63 left column second paragraph teaches “A third point of CAD/CAE integration is to replace the usual finite elements (of small-size) with others of larger size applying the same interpolation for both the geometry and the variable.” Provatidis fails to teach a criteria of a detected ribbon is a depression, protrusion, closed, or has a revolution.
Feng, Q., et al. “A hybrid and automated approach to adapt geometry model for CAD/CAE integration” Engineering with Computers, vol. 36, pp. 543-563 (2020) [herein “Feng”] page 545 section 2.2 teaches “Woo [13] proposed a divide and conquer approach for mid-surface abstraction. Boussuge [14, 15] modified the given B-rep model by extrusion and revolution operations to link the initial geometry and its idealization robustly, e.g., linkage of a block, created by ‘extrusion’, to its initial primitive shape plane helps to reach the goal of dimension reduction.” Linkage of these blocks as extrusion and revolution corresponds with a partitioning. But Feng fails to teach a criteria of a detected ribbon is a depression, protrusion, closed, or has a revolution.
Boussuge, F., et al. “Extraction of generative processes from B-Rep shapes and application to idealization transformations” Computer-Aided Design, vol. 46, pp. 79-89 (2014) [herein “Boussuge”] page 83 figure 6 teaches “identification of extrusion primitives.” These primitives are not identified as a part of a ribbon or equivalent sweep. Accordingly, Boussuge fails to teach a criteria of a detected ribbon is a depression, protrusion, closed, or has a revolution.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “wherein the one or more geometrical criteria associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons are selected among: the detected ribbon is a depression, the detected ribbon is a protrusion, the detected ribbon is closed, and/or the detected ribbon has a revolution” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8836701 B1 Rockwood
teaches
Surface Patch Techniques for Computational Geometry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 30 March 2026
Prosecution Insights