DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection on 2/5/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4-7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 21-29 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 19 have been amended. Claims 8-11 and 20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-29 have been added. Claims 1, 12, 13, 21, 28, and 29 are independent claims.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 13, 21, 28, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 12, 13, 21, 28, and 29, in the third limitation of each, replace … associated to the respective split view … with … associated with the respective split view …
Claims 1, 12, 13, 21, 28, and 29, add “and” before wherein each split view further comprises …
Claims 12 and 28, in the preamble, replace … computer readable … with … … computer-readable …
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 4-7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 21-29 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.
Each of the independent claims 1, 12, 13, 21, 28, and 29 recites the limitation "a shared circle center of the at least two split views being located outside a main view, such that …". Examiner suggests amending this limitation to "the shared circle center of the at least two split views being located outside the main view, such that …" for proper antecedent basis.
Additionally, each of the independent claims 1, 12, 13, 21, 28, and 29 recites
“… responsive to receiving the user interaction with a first one of the at least two split views, rotating the first one of the at least two split views about the shared circle center, enlarging the first one of the at least two split views, such that the radius length of the circle sector corresponding to the first one of the at least two split views increases or the central angle of the circle sector corresponding to the first one of the at least two split views increases, and reducing a second one of the at least two split views; and
updating rotation of the second one of the least two split views away from the first one of the at least two split views rotated about the shared circle center.”
Examiner finds this to raise confusion and indefiniteness since the option of increasing the radius length of the circle sector corresponding to that split view would contradict the sequence described of the rotation of that split view, the reducing of the second one of the at least two split views, and the updated rotation of the second one of the at least two split views away from the first one of the at least two split views rotated about the shared circle center. Additionally, there is confusion with the user interaction initiating the change in size, extent, and location of each of the split views. Furthermore, each of the independent claims is incomplete for omitting essential steps. The claims do not recite further updating the rendering of the 3D model in each of the split views according to the updated rendering area of each view and the corresponding visualization mode responsive to the additional interaction that causes the modification in the at least two split views. The disclosure emphasizes that this updating step following the modification of the split views is essential to the invention [see [0061]].
Examiner suggests amending this portion of each of the independent claims to recite
“… responsive to receiving additional :[[,]]
rotating the first one of the at least two split views about the shared circle center;[[,]]
enlarging the first one of the at least two split views, such that ;
reducing a second one of the at least two split views;
updating rotation of the second one of the least two split views away from the first one of the at least two split views rotated about the shared circle center; and
updating the rendering of the 3D model in each of the split views according to the updated rendering area of each view and the corresponding visualization mode.”
None of the dependent claims add any limitations to resolve these issue. Thus the dependent claims, are accordingly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Additionally, each of claims 7, 19, 25, and 27 recites “enlarging the one of the split views by …”. Examiner suggests amending this limitation in each of these claims to "enlarging the first one of the at least two split views by …" for proper antecedent basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 5, 18, 22, 23, and 26 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Examiner notes that each of claims 4, 5, 18, 22, 23, and 26 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends since the limitation recited in each of these dependent claims is already recited in a claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Additionally the dependence of claims 6 and 24 would require amendments to depend on claims 1 and 21, respectively should Applicant cancel claims 4 and 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments with respect to the amended independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been accordingly withdrawn.
Applicant is referred to the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 presented above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The independent claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Applicant is encouraged to reconsider the suggested Examiner Amendment with proposed amendments to the entire claim set as presented during the interview held with Applicant’s representative on 2/17/2026 and indicated in the attached interview summary.
Proper claim amendments and cancellations are also requested to overcome the rejections under 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to address the potential objection to claim 25, as indicated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172