DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Responsive to communications on 03/01/2023
Claims 1-20 pending
Claims 1-20 rejected
Priority
Application data sheet received on 03/01/2023 claims priority to European Application No. 22305354.7, filed March 24, 2022. Application data sheet is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
Responsive to the IDS received on 03/01/2023. IDS is accepted by the examiner and all references considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the workflow of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. As understood by the examiner, the process of claim 2 is outlined in figure 4, and the process of claim 4 is outlined in figure 5. Regarding claim 3, it seems as though the steps of the first half of the claim can be understood as similar to figure 5. Regarding the second half of the claim, the drawings do not depict what it looks like for a splitting of an open non-manifold input sketch into two remaining open sketch pieces which are then joined together.
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
Responsive to the abstract received on 03/01/2023. Examiner confirms the abstract contains less than 150 words and contains no legal or implied phraseology. Abstract is accepted by the examiner.
Responsive to the specifications received on 03/01/2023. The specifications are objected to for the following informalities:
Page 40 line 15: “(see the combinations illustrated in FIG.s 1 and 2).” This was likely meant to be written as “(see the combinations illustrated in FIG.s 2 and 3).
Page 40 line 15: “The generating S110 comprises generating a second aggregation 311 (respectively a third aggregation 312) based on the sketch fragment 305 (respectively the sketch fragment 306).” The usage of “respectfully” does not seem to make sense in context of the drawings, it seems like this passage are meant to demonstrate that the aggregations 312 and 311 are from sketch fragments 306 and 305 respectively. Not that 305 is respective of 306.
Page 45 line 5: “The providing S10 comprise obtaining a set of sketch fragments 611 and generating S110 15 three aggregations of connected sketch fragments from the obtained set of sketch fragments (which are the three input sketches 611). Then, the sketch-processing method comprises determining S20 three output sketches 613 from the three input sketches 612.” This passage gives confusion on what is considered an input/aggregated sketch. As the examiner understands, the “input sketches” are the aggregated sketches. As in, (612) is the input/aggregated sketch.
Appropriate correction to the specifications is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claims 1, 13, and 20 state: “wherein the one or more output sketches including each closed sketch of the constructed set and each closed and manifold sketch formed by the combining.” This was likely meant to be written as “wherein the one or more output sketches include each closed sketch of the constructed set and each closed and manifold sketch formed by the combining.”
Claim 7 states “he computer-implemented computer-implemented method” This repeated word was likely a typographic error.
Appropriate correction to the claims is required.
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 recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, which has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claimed invention one of the four statutory categories? :
YES. The claim recites A computer-implemented method comprising: which is a process.
Step 2A Prong 1, inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?":
YES. Claim 1 recites sketch-processing, the sketch-processing including:
The claim pertains to the method of “Sketch-processing” which is outlined in the steps of the claim below. As will be outlined below, this process involves taking or observing a photo of an object. Generating a sketch of that object (such as with a pen and paper), and determining/generating “output” sketches, of that object based on the created intermediary sketches. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Because the above claimed limitation can be performed with a pen and paper when recited broadly, this claim pertains to an abstract idea.
and determining one or more output sketches from the one or more input sketches, each output sketch being closed and manifold,
This limitation is expanded on below in the claim. When recited broadly, determining one of more output sketches from the one of more input sketches means to observe the input sketches and make a determination if the input sketch follows the requirements of an output sketch (is the sketch closed and manifold). This is an observation and judgement performed by an individual. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Therefore the claim recites a mental process.
the determining of the one or more output sketches including: constructing a set of manifold sketches including each manifold input sketch,
When recited broadly, this “set” of sketches is simply a list or imaginary work space which holds a record of which input sketches passes the manifold requirement. This is not a physical construction of a set, but rather a keeping of records a user makes by observing the input sketches and passing a judgement as to which are manifold. This pertains to the mental process of organization. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ Therefore the claim recites a mental process.
the constructing of the set of manifold sketches including, for each respective non-manifold input sketch, determining two or more respective manifold sketches based on the at least one intra-sketch intersection of the respective non-manifold input sketch, the constructed set further including each manifold sketch determined for each respective non-manifold input sketch,
This claim limitation states to transform the non-manifold input sketches into manifold equivalents to then be “placed” in the constructed set. A non-manifold sketch is a sketch which contains an intersection within the sketch. Determining manifold sketch is simply splitting apart a non-manifold sketch at the intersections. See Fig 4. Of this applications specifications which the examiner believes outlines this process. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Therefore this claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
and combining each pair of manifold sketches of the constructed set that share at least two intersections, to form one or more closed and manifold sketches,
This claim limitation states to combine manifold sketches that share intersections. This is the process of combining two drawings at the intersections of those drawings. This is a process which can be performed by one ordinarily skilled in the art. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Therefore this claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
wherein the one or more output sketches including each closed sketch of the constructed set and each closed and manifold sketch formed by the combining.
This claim limitation essentially seems to state that the output sketches determined in the claim are the closed sketches of the construction sets and the manifold sketches formed by the combining. Both were determined to be judicial exceptions. Therefore, this claim limitation is an additional recitation of the above judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. Claim 1 additionally recites computer-implemented.
The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore the recitation of “computer-implemented” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more
obtaining one or more input sketches, the one or more input sketches including: at least one non-manifold sketch, each non-manifold sketch being a sketch that has at least one intra-sketch intersection, and/or at least one pair of sketches that share at least two inter-sketch intersections;
This limitation pertains to the gathering of input sketches to then perform the judicial exception of converting the input sketches into output sketches which follow the rules of manifold and closure. The MPEP 2106.05(g) outlines examples of “mere data gathering” which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. One example is “i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);” This limitation can be understood as “obtaining input for a mental process.” Because this claim limitation pertains to obtaining an input to be used in the judicial exception, it is mere data gathering and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, does the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
NO. As stated in Step 2A Prong 2, obtaining one or more input sketches, the one or more input sketches including: at least one non-manifold sketch, each non-manifold sketch being a sketch that has at least one intra-sketch intersection, and/or at least one pair of sketches that share at least two inter-sketch intersections;
As stated above, this limitation pertains to mere data gathering. This limitation is also well understood routine and conventional. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) , the courts have identified the following computer functions as well understood and conventional. See “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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition);” Based on the examiners understanding, the obtaining of input sketches is done either by retrieving information, or extracting data from a physical document. Therefore, the above data gathering step is considered to be conventional.
Based on the above facts, the office concludes that claim 1 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each input sketch is oriented,
As stated above in claim 1, the receiving of input sketches are mere data gathering. Furthermore, the fact that the sketches are oriented does not impact the judicial exceptions performed above, as drawings are naturally oriented. Therefore, this limitation does not apply the judicial exception into a practical application.
the determining of the two or more respective manifold sketches including recursively splitting the respective non-manifold input sketch, the recursive splitting including: browsing the respective non-manifold input sketch; encountering a point of the intra-sketch intersection; splitting the respective non-manifold input sketch at the encountered point of the intra-sketch intersection, thereby forming two sketch pieces; and for each sketch piece: if the sketch piece has no intra-sketch intersection, determining the sketch piece as one of the two or more respective manifold sketches, or if the sketch piece has at least one intra-sketch intersection, repeating the recursive splitting with the sketch piece.
This limitation pertains to the determination of manifold sketches from a non-manifold sketch. As understood by the examiner, this is the process outlined in figure 4, where an individual iterates over the intersections in a drawing, and splits the drawings up at those intersections. This is a further recitation of the determination of manifold sketches outlined in claim 1, and therefore also pertains to an abstract idea which can be performed with a paper and pencil.
Claim 3:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more input sketches include one or more closed non-manifold input sketch,
As stated above in claim 1, the receiving of input sketches are mere data gathering. Furthermore, the fact that the sketches contains closed sketches does not impact the judicial exceptions performed above. Therefore, this limitation does not apply the judicial exception into a practical application.
and for each closed respective non-manifold input sketch, the splitting of the respective non-manifold input sketch including: browsing the non-manifold input sketch starting from the point of the intra-sketch intersection; encountering another point of the intra-sketch intersection; extracting the sketch piece from the non-manifold input sketch between the point and the another point of the intra-sketch intersection, thereby defining one of the two sketch pieces and a remaining sketch piece of the non-manifold input sketch; and defining the remaining sketch piece as the another one of the two sketch pieces;
This limitation pertains to the determination of manifold sketches from a non-manifold sketch. As understood by the examiner, this is the process where an individual iterates over the intersections in a drawing, and splits the drawings up at those intersections. This is a further recitation of the determination of manifold sketches outlined in claim 1, and therefore also pertains to an abstract idea which can be performed with a paper and pencil.
and/or the one or more input sketches include one or more open non-manifold input sketch, and for each open respective non-manifold input sketch, the splitting of the respective non-manifold input sketch includes: browsing the non-manifold input sketch starting from the point of the intra-sketch intersection; encountering another point of the intra-sketch intersection; extracting the sketch piece from the non-manifold input sketch between the point and the another point of the intra-sketch intersection, thereby defining one of the two sketch pieces and two remaining sketch pieces of the non-manifold input sketch, each of the two remaining sketch pieces being open; and joining the remaining two sketch pieces, thereby forming the another one of the two sketch pieces.
This limitation pertains to the determination of manifold sketches from a non-manifold sketch. As understood by the examiner, this is the process outlined where an individual iterates over the intersections in a drawing, and splits the drawings up at those intersections. This is a further recitation of the determination of manifold sketches outlined in claim 1, and therefore also pertains to an abstract idea which can be performed with a paper and pencil.
Claim 4:The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each pair of manifold sketches includes a first manifold sketch and a second manifold sketch, the forming of the one or more closed sketches including: for each pair of successive intersections between the first manifold sketch and the second manifold sketch along the second manifold sketch: extracting a portion of the second manifold sketch delimited by these two successive intersections; splitting the first manifold sketch between these two successive intersections, thereby obtaining one or two segments of the first manifold sketch; and recombining each segment of the first manifold sketch with the extracted portion of the second manifold sketch, thereby obtaining one or two closed and manifold sketches.
This limitation pertains to the formation of closed and manifold sketches. As understood by the examiner, this is the process outlined by figure 5. This claim limitation can be understood as iteratively looking at the intersections between the sketches, and then splitting the sketches based on those intersections. This is a process which can be performed by a person ordinarily skilled in the art with a paper and pencil, which is a further recitation of the abstract idea outlined in claim 1.
Claim 5:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the constructed set of manifold sketches consists of unique sketches.
This claim limitation pertains to the construction set of manifold sketches which was determined to be an abstract idea. The fact that the sketches are unique (different then each other) does not integrate the exception into a practical application ort provide significantly more and therefore the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the one or more input sketches includes: obtaining a set of sketch fragments;
As stated previously, the obtaining one of more input sketches was determined to be mere data gathering. Obtaining a set of sketch fragments, where the fragments are simply understood as being a part of the input sketch when recited generally, does not meaningfully limit or integrate the claim into a practical application.
and generating one or more aggregations of connected sketch fragments from the obtained set of sketch fragments, thereby obtaining the one or more input sketches.
The generating aggregations of connected sketch fragments is the combining of sketch fragments based on distance and connections. This is a process outlined in Fig 2. For example, splitting a drawing of a house into a roof and walls. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Therefore this claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7:The
This claim limitation is a further recitation of the fragments and connecting the fragments to each other to form an aggregation of sketch fragments. This is a further recitation of an abstract idea. Connecting the fragments to each other based on a threshold is the determination of “if two fragments are close enough connect them.” This is a determination which can be performed by one ordinarily skilled in the art. Therefore this is a further recitation of the abstract idea of aggregating the fragments.
Claim 8:The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the obtaining of the sketch fragments is performed upon user interaction and/or:
by fitting one or more curves and/or detecting one or more specific geometric curves on:
a drawing,
automatically-detected edges on an image, and/or
manually traced edges on an image, and/or
by fitting oriented curves to a projection of profile-based approximate surfaces detected on 3D scans.
As already stated, the obtaining of sketch fragments is considered to be mere data gathering. This is a further recitation of how the data is gathered. Furthermore, as stated previously, this mere data gathering is considered understood and conventional MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition);” Therefore this claim limitation does not integrate the judicial exception or add significantly more.
Claim 9:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the constructed set of manifold sketches consists of closed sketches.
As stated above, the determination and construction of the set of manifold sketches is an abstract idea. The sketches consisting of closed sketches does not impact the abstract idea being performed. Therefore this is a further recitation of the abstract idea and does not impact the judicial exception being performed.
Claim 10:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sketch-processing outputs one or more closed and manifold sketches and the method further comprises:
This claim generically stated to output the sketches determined earlier in the claim as a result of the judicial exception. The 2106.05(g) outlines examples of Insignificant Extra-solution activity, with an example being an Insignificant application such as “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus” This limitation can be understood as printing/downloading/outputting generated sketches, and therefore the limitation is an insignificant application of the juridical exception. Furthermore, this limitation when recited broadly is considered well understood and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) with an example of “Electronic recordkeeping … updating an activity log.” Where the examiner understands simply outputting information to be well understood in the art.
generating a 2D shape by: generating one or more 2D surfaces based on the outputted one or more closed and manifold sketches, each 2D surface being inside one of the determined one or more closed and manifold sketches, and forming the 2D shape based on the generated one or more 2D surfaces.
This claim limitation can essentially be understood as drawing a 2D drawing based on a sketch. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Therefore this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11:The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sketch-processing outputs one or more closed and manifold sketches and the method further comprises:
As stated, This claim generically stated to output the sketches determined earlier in the claim as a result of the judicial exception. The 2106.05(g) outlines examples of Insignificant Extra-solution activity, with an example being an Insignificant application such as “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus” This limitation can be understood as printing/downloading/outputting generated sketches, and therefore the limitation is an insignificant application of the juridical exception. Furthermore, this limitation when recited broadly is considered well understood and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) with an example of “Electronic recordkeeping … updating an activity log.” Where the examiner understands simply outputting information to be well understood in the art.
generating a 3D shape by: outputting one or more closed and manifold sketches, generating one or more 3D portions based on the outputted one or more closed and manifold sketches, each 3D portion being an extrusion or a revolution of one of the outputted one or more closed and manifold sketches, and forming the 3D shape based on the generated one or more 3D portions.
As understood by the examiner, this claim limitation essentially encompasses using 2D perspective sketches to create a 3D drawing. Artists and those normally skilled in the art reasonably receive 2D perspective sketches and use that information to plan out and draw a 3D shape. The MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Therefore this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 12:The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the method further comprises:
fitting profile-based volumes to an approximate surface by: segmenting the approximate surface into surface portions, detecting one or more directions for generation of a 3D profile-based volume and, for each direction, one or more respective surface portions, and for each of the one or more detected directions: generating a set of sketch fragments by projecting each of the one or more respective surface portions onto a plane orthonormal to an extrusion direction, performing the sketch-processing based on the generated set of sketch fragments, thereby outputting one or more closed and manifold sketches, and generating a 3D profile-based volume from the generated one or more closed and manifold sketches.
As understood by the examiner, this is the process of reviewing a 3D structure, isolating manifold perspective sketches across the different orthogonal directions of the structure and using that to determine the volume of the figure. One ordinarily skilled in the art is able to generate a 3D profuile of the volumes of an object based on its orthogonal directions. In order to provide a simple example, one ordinarily skilled in the art can observe a rectangle, and through its facial dimensions (generated sketches), create a 3D profile based volume of the rectangle. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. “ MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.”
Therefore this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 13-19:
Claims 13-19 are effective duplicates of claims 1-7 and are therefore rejected under the same rational above.
Additionally claim 13 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable data storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program having instructions for performing a computer-implemented method for sketch-processing, the method comprising:
As understood by the examiner, this is a recitation of generic computer machinery to perform the methods outlined above. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore these limitation do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, and the claims are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-7 above.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is an effective duplicate of claim 1 and is also therefore rejected under the same rational as claim 1. Additional claim 20 recites:A system comprising:
a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program having instructions for causing the processor to implement sketch-processing by being configured to:
As understood by the examiner, this is a recitation of generic computer machinery to perform the methods outlined above. The MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore these limitation do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, and the claims are rejected under the same rational as claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Efficient decomposition of line drawings of connected manifolds without face identification” (Fang_2014) and US 2011/0087350 A1 (Fogel_2011)
Claim 1:
Fang_2014 makes obvious A computer-implemented (page 10 results: “We implemented the algorithm on a PC with Intel Core TM”) method comprising: sketch-processing, the sketch-processing including: (Fang page 1 abstract: “an algorithm for decomposing complex line drawings which depict connected 3D manifolds into multiple simpler drawings of individual manifolds”)
obtaining one or more input sketches, the one or more input sketches including: (Fang page 2 col 2 par 6: “We also decompose a line drawing of manifolds across internal faces to obtain multiple drawings of simpler manifolds, all directly from the line drawing itself (Examiner note: input sketch) without finding faces first.”)
at least one non-manifold sketch, each non-manifold sketch being a sketch that Fang page 1 col 2 par 3: “We introduce here the special terms that appear in the rest of the paper. Fig. 1 shows the decomposition of a line drawing and illustrates some of the terms.” … Fig 1. “Decomposition of a line drawing. (a) A line drawing of a non-manifold. “ )
and/or at least one pair of sketches that share at least two inter-sketch intersections; (not mapped due to “or”)
and determining one or more output sketches from the one or more input sketches, each output sketch being closed and manifold, the determining of the one or more output sketches including: (Fang page 2 Fig 1 :” Fig. 1. Decomposition of a line drawing. (a) A line drawing of a non-manifold (Examiner note: input sketch) . The black dot is a non-manifold vertex; the bold black line is a non-manifold edge; the shaded polygons, f1 and f2, are internal faces. (b) Five simple manifolds are obtained (Examiner note: output sketches) by decomposing at the non-manifold vertex, non-manifold edge and internal faces.”
and combining each pair of manifold sketches of the constructed set that share at least two intersections, to form one or more closed and manifold sketches, wherein the one or more output sketches including each closed sketch of the constructed set and each closed and manifold sketch formed by the combining. (this is an optional limitation, due to the presence of “or” regarding the pair of sketches above. There is no requirement that the input sketches or constructed sketch contains a pair that share intersections that are combined)
Fang_2014 does not expressly recite has at least one intra-sketch intersection
for each respective non-manifold input sketch, determining two or more respective manifold sketches based on the at least one intra-sketch intersection of the respective non-manifold input sketch,
constructing a set of manifold sketches including each manifold input sketch, the constructing of the set of manifold sketches including,
the constructed set further including each manifold sketch determined for each respective non-manifold input sketch,
Fogel_2011 however makes obvious has at least one intra-sketch intersection
PNG
media_image1.png
563
1194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par 118: “FIG. 4A is a schematic illustration of a self intersecting polygon 400 that might appear as a facet in an input model, according to an embodiment of the present invention. Edges 'a' and 'b' of model parts 405 and 410 intersect each other. The bounded area at the top right is defined and closed, but the bounded area on the bottom left is not. The exhaustive healing strategy fixes this flaw. )
constructing a set of manifold sketches including each manifold input sketch, the constructing of the set of manifold sketches including,
(par 14: Printable Model: A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds) Examiner note: Where the fact that the goal of the present invention is to generate a printable model, abstract: “This invention generally relates to a method and system for transforming 3D (three-dimensional) digital models into valid printable models” makes obvious that this invention is putting the manifold sketches into a set.
for each respective non-manifold input sketch, determining two or more respective manifold sketches based on the at least one intra-sketch intersection of the respective non-manifold input sketch,
(par 118: “In particular, self intersecting polygons that comprise invalid facets are split into several polygons, some of which are retained and the others are removed.”)”)
the constructed set further including each manifold sketch determined for each respective non-manifold input sketch,
(par 118: “In particular, self intersecting polygons that comprise invalid facets are split into several polygons, some of which are retained and the others are removed.”)”) Examiner note: Where the newly split cells are implies to be in the set.
Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 are analogous art of the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of endeavor called digital modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a motivation proposed in the prior art. The prior art of Fang_2014 teaches a method of recovering a 3D model from a line drawing. Fogel_2011 teaches constructing sets closed 2D manifolds to be used in 3d-printing from a 3D model. Fogel_2011 states par 18: “It should be noted that correct and consistent representations of 3D objects are required by conventional applications … However, the acquired 3D models, whether created by hand or by automatic tools, usually contain errors and inconsistencies” In order to use conventional applications of the recovered 3D models of Fang_2014, one ordinarily skilled in the art would use the sets of closed manifold sketches of Fogel_2011 to correct inconsistencies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the 3D model of Fang_2014 with 2D closed manifold sets of Fogel_2011 for the benefit of removing inconsistencies to use in conventional applications to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2:
Fang_2014 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each input sketch is splitting the respective non-manifold input sketch, the recursive splitting including: browsing the respective non-manifold input sketch; encountering a point of the intra-sketch intersection; splitting the respective non-manifold input sketch at the encountered point of the intra-sketch intersection, thereby forming two sketch pieces;
“NMV Algorithm: Decomposition at a non-manifold vertex
1. Let s be an empty set
2. Put one adjacent vertex of the NMV into s
3. For every open vertex in s
4. For every edge connected to this vertex
5. If the other endpoint of the edge is not in U and does not exist in s, store the endpoint in s
6. End For
7. End For
8. Add to s the NMV and other vertices in U with one or more adjacent vertices already in s
9. Store the vertices in s as a separate manifold
10. While the number of unused adjacent vertices of the NMV is not 0
11. Move to the next unused adjacent vertex
12. If this vertex does not belong to an existing manifold
13. Empty s
14. Put this vertex in s and go to step 3
15. End If
16. End While
Examiner note: The examiner would like to explain the mapping of the algorithm. Please see mapping to the rest of the claim which also helps explain. This algorithm is recursive, please see the presence of loops in the algorithm. This algorithm goes to every vertex (aka visits every point), and then stores the vertexes of the new manifold as a separate manifold(effectively this is splitting the non-manifold vertex where the drawings are defined by the vertexes)
and for each sketch piece:
if the sketch piece has no intra-sketch intersection, determining the sketch piece as one of the two or more respective manifold sketches,
page 20 col 2 par 1: This algorithm will visit every potential NMV, i.e. a vertex with degree 6 or greater, and return separate manifolds with all their vertices. If the NMV is a manifold vertex, then a single component is returned, except for a special case dealt with in Section 3.4. Take as an example the line drawing in Fig. 3, where Vertex 0 is a NMV. First, one adjacent vertex (Vertex 1 say) of the NMV is put into an empty set s. Then we search for the endpoint of each adjacent edge; Vertices 2 and 6 are found and added to s. These two vertices then bring in Vertices 3, 5, 7, and 4. After that, no more vertices can be added to s. Finally, the NMV is added to s to complete the decomposition of one simpler manifold or if the sketch piece has at least one intra-sketch intersection, repeating the recursive splitting with the sketch piece.
or if the sketch piece has at least one intra-sketch intersection, repeating the recursive splitting with the sketch piece.
page 20 col 2 par 1: This algorithm will visit every potential NMV, i.e. a vertex with degree 6 or greater, and return separate manifolds with all their vertices. If the NMV is a manifold vertex, then a single component is returned, except for a special case dealt with in Section 3.4. Take as an example the line drawing in Fig. 3, where Vertex 0 is a NMV. First, one adjacent vertex (Vertex 1 say) of the NMV is put into an empty set s. Then we search for the endpoint of each adjacent edge; Vertices 2 and 6 are found and added to s. These two vertices then bring in Vertices 3, 5, 7, and 4. After that, no more vertices can be added to s. Finally, the NMV is added to s to complete the decomposition of one simpler manifold or if the sketch piece has at least one intra-sketch intersection, repeating the recursive splitting with the sketch piece.
Fang_2014 does not expressly recite oriented
Fogel_2011 however makes obvious oriented (par 18: “However, the acquired 3D models, whether created by hand or by automatic tools, usually contain errors and inconsistencies. For example, they can contain wrongly-oriented, intersecting, or overlapping polygons, cracks, and T-junctions” …. par 74: “FIG. 4D is a schematic illustration of forming a watertight model by flipping the wrongly oriented polygon, according to an embodiment of the present invention;” Examiner note: both of which imply that the input drawings have orientations.
Whereas already stated, it would have been obvious to combine the 3D model of Fang_2014 with 2D closed manifold sets with oriented polygons of Fogel_2011 for the benefit of removing inconsistencies to use in conventional applications to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 3:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more input sketches include one or more closed non-manifold input sketch, and for each closed respective non-manifold input sketch, the splitting of the respective non-manifold input sketch including:
Page 4 figure 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
416
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
browsing the non-manifold input sketch starting from the point of the intra-sketch intersection; encountering another point of the intra-sketch intersection; extracting the sketch piece from the non-manifold input sketch between the point and the another point of the intra-sketch intersection, thereby defining one of the two sketch pieces and a remaining sketch piece of the non-manifold input sketch;
“A non-manifold edge (NME) is identified by having both its end vertices to be of degree 4 or higher. At a vertex where the degree is 4, the NME has to be collinear with one other incident edge as well. Decomposition along a NME is similar to decomposition at a NMV We also need to find all the vertices adjacent to the two endpoints of a NME. For example, in Fig. 5, the NME is marked with a bold line and its adjacent vertices are marked with circles The basic idea for this decomposition is similar to that of the NMV Algorithm: vertices are in the same manifold if there exists a path connecting them that do not contain a vertex of any NME. We refrain from listing this NME Algorithm as it is identical to the NMV Algorithm; instead of putting NMVs in the set U, we now put the end vertices of the NMEs.”
and defining the remaining sketch piece as the another one of the two sketch pieces;
PNG
media_image3.png
506
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: See the Edge on the bottom right. Where both pieces are extracted and are defined as parts of the remaining sketch pieces. Please see explanation in claim 2 for the algorithm, which is similar to what is used here.
and/or the one or more input sketches include one or more open non-manifold input sketch, and for each open respective non-manifold input sketch, the splitting of the respective non-manifold input sketch includes: browsing the non-manifold input sketch starting from the point of the intra-sketch intersection; encountering another point of the intra-sketch intersection; extracting the sketch piece from the non-manifold input sketch between the point and the another point of the intra-sketch intersection, thereby defining one of the two sketch pieces and two remaining sketch pieces of the non-manifold input sketch, each of the two remaining sketch pieces being open; and joining the remaining two sketch pieces, thereby forming the another one of the two sketch pieces. (Examiner note: These limitations all pertain to the “or” and are therefore not required)
Claim 4:
Fogel_2011 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each pair of manifold sketches includes a first manifold sketch and a second manifold sketch, the forming of the one or more closed sketches including:
Fogel_2011 par 113: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the model outputted from the healing step 315 contains parts, which are watertight with substantially no artifacts.” (Examiner note: Where the parts themselves are manifold sketches)
for each pair of successive intersections between the first manifold sketch and the second manifold sketch along the second manifold sketch: (par 113: “However, the parts may intersect, and their union may not represent a closed 2D-manifold.”)
extracting a portion of the second manifold sketch delimited by these two successive intersections; (par 113: “Thus, the intersections between interiors of parts are removed in unifying step 350,”)
splitting the first manifold sketch between these two successive intersections, thereby obtaining one or two segments of the first manifold sketch; and recombining each segment of the first manifold sketch with the extracted portion of the second manifold sketch, thereby obtaining one or two closed and manifold sketches.
(par 113: “Thus, the intersections between interiors of parts are removed in unifying step 350, which may employ two methods with different characteristics, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The first method is an extension of the prior art Dual Marching Cubes (DMC) algorithm, … In other words, the Dual Marching Cubes algorithm is applied to 2D-manifold meshes in order to create a single closed 2D-manifold surface of their union.”
Whereas already stated, it would have been obvious to combine the 3D model of Fang_2014 with 2D closed manifold sets that transform the intersections into closed sketches of Fogel_2011 for the benefit of removing inconsistencies to use in conventional applications to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 5:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the constructed set of manifold sketches consists of unique sketches.
Fogel_2011 makes obvious wherein the constructed set of manifold sketches consists of unique sketches. (First, identical and degenerate features, such as identical triangles, degenerate triangles/edges are removed. Then, epsilon-close features are merged, and T-junctions are eliminated by splitting edges. Such a split introduces two polygons that replace an original polygon.)
Whereas already stated, it would have been obvious to combine the 3D model of Fang_2014 with 2D closed manifold sets with unique sketches of Fogel_2011 for the benefit of removing inconsistencies to use in conventional applications to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 9:
Fogel_2011 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the constructed set of manifold sketches consists of closed sketches.
par 1: “This invention generally relates to a method and system for transforming 3D (three-dimensional) digital models into valid printable models for 3D-printers” …. par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds”
Whereas already stated, it would have been obvious to combine the 3D model of Fang_2014 with 2D closed manifold sets of Fogel_2011 for the benefit of removing inconsistencies to use in conventional applications to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 13 – 17:Claims 13-17 are substantial duplicates of claims 1-5 listed above. And are therefore rejected under the same rational. Additionally, Fang_2014 makes obvious the additional limitations of claim 13.
A non-transitory computer readable data storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program having instructions for performing (Fang_2014 page 10 results: “We implemented the algorithm on a PC with Intel CoreTM 2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66 GHz in C++. Fig. 17 shows a set of test objects successfully decomposed into simple manifolds”)
Claims 20:
Claim 20 is a substantial duplicate of claim 1 listed above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational. Additionally, Fang_2014 makes obvious the additional limitations of claim 20.
A system comprising: a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program having instructions for causing the processor to implement sketch-processing by being configured to: (Fang_2014 page 10 results: “We implemented the algorithm on a PC with Intel CoreTM 2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66 GHz in C++. Fig. 17 shows a set of test objects successfully decomposed into simple manifolds”)
Claims 6-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang_2014, Fogel_2011, and Further on US 2007/0291031 A1 (Konev_2004)
Claim 6:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the one or more input sketches includes:
Fang_2014 does not expressly recite obtaining a set of sketch fragments; and generating one or more aggregations of connected sketch fragments from the obtained set of sketch fragments, thereby obtaining the one or more input sketches.
Konev_2004 however makes obvious obtaining a set of sketch fragments; and generating one or more aggregations of connected sketch fragments from the obtained set of sketch fragments, thereby obtaining the one or more input sketches. (Konev_2007 par 8: “In one aspect, the technology includes a computer implemented process for creating three dimensional object view data, comprising: accessing a three dimensional object data comprising a plurality of polygons having borders (Examiner note: sketch fragments); building a border collapsion heap, the border collapsion heap comprising pairs of border elements separated by a distance; and joining one or more pairs of border elements based on a separation distance.” (Examiner note: aggregations))
Fang_2014, and Konev_2004 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called digital modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fang_2014 and Konev_2004 The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a rational proposed in the prior art. Konev_2007 states par 4: “It is often useful when working with design drawings to view three dimensional representations of the objects in the drawings. Three dimensional (3D ) visualization of objects is useful in a variety of contexts. For example, CAD designs can be converted to 3D representations to allow designers a better understanding of the element being designed. Typically, when a CAD model is subjected to three dimensional (3D) visualization, the CAD model suffers from sloppy geometry-there are cracks and holes in its surfaces, gaps exist between adjacent surfaces, surfaces overlap, or solid objects have disjointed pieces. This defective geometry is due to CAD artifacts and may preclude the use of many visualization algorithms that require closed models.” And par 5: “Moreover, when attempting to create a "real time" 3D renderings, these errors in the geometry require computationally intensive correction.” When working with the 3D line drawings of Fang_2014, one ordinarily skilled in the art could recognize and apply the 3D model cleanup of Konev_2004 as preprocessing to ensure the method of Fang_2014 performs properly without cracks and holes before face identification/3D decomposition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the decomposition of Fang_2014 with the sketch aggregation of Konev_2004 for the benefit of reducing computation time in correction to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 7:Konev_2007 makes obvious The
Konev_2007 par 8: “In one aspect, the technology includes a computer implemented process for creating three dimensional object view data, comprising: accessing a three dimensional object data comprising a plurality of polygons having borders (Examiner note: sketch fragments); building a border collapsion heap, the border collapsion heap comprising pairs of border elements separated by a distance; and joining one or more pairs of border elements based on a separation distance.” (Examiner note: aggregations) … par 46: “At step 740, a tolerance factor is applied such that vertices that are close to the edges of cell boundaries are also referenced in adjacent cells. This tolerance factor (E10,n) is the largest distance between vertices that should be joined. ” … par 48: “For each potential pair of adjacent vertices (step 910), a test is made at step 915 to determine if the distance between the vertex pair is less than a join threshold (E10,n). If not, the pair is not a candidate at step 950 …. The process loop between steps 910 and 935 continues until all candidates for the model are added to the collapsion heap”
Examiner note: Whereas the examiner understands, each vertex is located at the extremity of a fragment. Where this process as described above encompasses connecting the vertex’s of fragments together if the distance is close enough.
Claims 18-19:Claims 18-19 are effectively similar to claims 6-7 except that they depend on claim 13. Therefore claims 18-19 are rejected under the same rational as claims 6-7 and 13.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang_2014, Fogel_2011, Konev_2004, and “Solid reconstruction from orthographic views using 2-stage extrusion” (Shum_2000)
Claim 8:Fang_2014 does not expressly recite
Shum_2000 however makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the obtaining of the sketch fragments is performed upon user interaction and/or:
by fitting one or more curves and/or detecting one or more specific geometric curves on:
a drawing,
automatically-detected edges on an image, and/or
manually traced edges on an image, and/or
by fitting oriented curves to a projection of profile-based approximate surfaces detected on 3D scans.
PNG
media_image4.png
877
643
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Where Captured images converted to vectors with curve fitting implies either automatically-detected edges on an image or manually traced edges on an image, or curve fittings for a drawing
Fang_2014 and Shum_2000 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called digital modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fang_2014 and Shum_2000. The rationale for doing so would have been the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The device of Fang_2014 utilizes line drawings, but does not state how they are received or created. The prior art of Shum_2000 provides and makes obvious a way that line drawings are created, which is through images and line fitting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the line drawing decomposition workflow of Fang_2014 with the known technique of receiving of images for line drawings of Shum_2000 so that the inventor of Fang_2014 can decompose the resulting drawing and to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 12:The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the method further comprises:
Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 make obvious
performing the sketch-processing based on the generated set of sketch fragments, (See claim 1 mapping for the process of sketch processing), thereby outputting one or more closed and manifold sketches, (Fogel_2011 par 1: This invention generally relates to a method and system for transforming 3D (three-dimensional) digital models into valid printable models … par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds)
Fogel_2011 par 1: This invention generally relates to a method and system for transforming 3D (three-dimensional) digital models into valid printable models … par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds)
Shum_2000 however makes obvious fitting profile-based volumes to an approximate surface by: segmenting the approximate surface into surface portions,
Shum_2000 page 93 definitions: “Contour area T,F,R the area within a closed-loop boundary of one view (see Fig. 8) and is extruded in the 1st stage.
Interior region t; f ; r the area formed by interior entities of one view (see Fig. 8) and is extruded in the 2nd stage.
Associate entity the entity in a view is associated with a corresponding entity in another view. In fact, both entities describe the same feature of an object”
PNG
media_image5.png
638
601
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Based on the examiners understanding, both these concepts cover segmenting a surface into “surface portions”
detecting one or more directions for generation of a 3D profile-based volume and, for each direction, one or more respective surface portions, and for each of the one or more detected directions:
Shum_2000 page 92 par 3: “In the 1st stage, each contour area (see definition in Section 4.1) of the three views is swept along a normal trajectory according to the object dimension. As a result, three extrusion-solids are produced and then intersected to form a basic-solid.”
generating a set of sketch fragments by projecting each of the one or more respective surface portions onto a plane orthonormal to an extrusion direction,
PNG
media_image6.png
400
559
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Abstract: “The algorithm has two extrusion stages. In each stage, geometric entities from only three orthogonal views(viz. top, front and right) are used”
and generating a 3D profile-based volume from the generated
Shum_2000 page 93 par 1:”The proposed method also employs the CSG approach. Ultimately, a 3-D CAD model is reconstructed from three orthographic projections of a physical translucent object. The projections are, in essence, 2-D line drawings, which are either solid or dashed”
Fang_2014, Fogel_2011, and Shum_2000 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called digital modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fang_2014, Fogel_2011, and Shum_2000. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a motivation proposed in the prior art. Shum_2000 page 93 par 3 states: “The 2-D geometric data input is assumed to be checked correct prior to solid reconstruction process. If any topological or geometrical inconsistency is found, reconstruction will no longer be possible. The drawing is unrealizable and image should be recaptured again (refer to Fig. 1).” The prior arts of Fogel_2011 correct these inconsistencies, see par 18: “It should be noted that correct and consistent representations of 3D objects are required by conventional applications, s” The prior art of Shum_2000 states that “The reconstruction of a three-dimensional (3-D) solid computer model from two-dimensional (2-D) multiple orthographic projection line drawings of a physical solid object has been studied for more than two decades.” Meaning that this is a known problem in the art. One ordinarily skilled in the art would combine the prior arts of Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 with Shum_2000 in order to solve this longstanding issue in the prior art. Furthermore, they would have a reasonable expectation for success as the prior arts of Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 help correct the possible deficiencies present in Shum_2000. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the closed and manifold generation of Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 with the 3d generation using orthographic projections of Shum_2000 for the benefit of improving a longstanding issue in the art to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang_2014, Fogel_2011, and “Engineering Sketch Generation for Computer-Aided Design” (Willis_2021)
Claim 10:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 make obvious wherein the sketch-processing outputs one or more closed and manifold sketches Fogel_2011 par 1: This invention generally relates to a method and system for transforming 3D (three-dimensional) digital models into valid printable models … par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds)
and the method further comprises:
Fogel_2011 par 1: This invention generally relates to a method and system for transforming 3D (three-dimensional) digital models into valid printable models … par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds)Fogel_2011 par 1: This invention generally relates to a method and system for transforming 3D (three-dimensional) digital models into valid printable models … par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds)
Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 do not expressly recite generating a 2D shape by:
generating one or more 2D surfaces based on the
sketches, each 2D surface being inside
forming the 2D shape based on the generated one or more 2D surfaces.
Willis_2021 however makes obvious generating a 2D shape by:
PNG
media_image7.png
429
971
media_image7.png
Greyscale
generating one or more 2D surfaces based on the sketches, each 2D surface being inside… forming the 2D shape based on the generated one or more 2D surfaces.
PNG
media_image8.png
306
522
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Where Willis_2021 teaches in part of their workflow to take sketches and then create 2D surfaces using the vectors.
Fang_2014, Fogel_2011, and Willis_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called Digital Modeling. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fang_2014, Fogel_2011, and Willis_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a motivation proposed in the prior art. Both Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 pertain to the creation of 3D models rather than 2D models. Willis_2021 also has the end goal of creating a 3D model, but first creates a 2D sketch which is then extruded to form the 3D model. Willis page 2 col 1 par 2 states “Despite recent advances with 2D vector graphic generation using data-driven approaches [21, 3, 26], there exists limited research on synthesizing engineering sketches directly. This is a challenging problem because engineering sketches contain disparate 2D geometric primitives coupled with topological information on how these primitives are connected together. The topology information is critical to ensure: 1) geometric primitives can be grouped into closed profile loops and lifted to 3D with modeling operations, and 2) constraints can be correctly defined using the topology” In order to create a 2D model with closed profile loops, one ordinarily skilled in the art would combine the decomposition workflow of Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 which apply to 3D models, and recognize that it would be easy to apply the same algorithm of Fang_2014 (essentially iterating through the vertexes) to creating a 2D Model as taught by Willis_2021.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the decomposition workflow which generates closed and manifolds of Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 with the creation of 2D surfaces using the sketch inputs of Willis_2021 for the benefit of synthesizing engineering sketches directly while maintaining critical topology information to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang_2014, Fogel_2011, and Shum_2000
Claim 11:Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 makes obvious The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sketch-processing outputs one or more closed and manifold sketches and the method further comprises: (Fogel_2011 par 1: This invention generally relates to a method and system for transforming 3D (three-dimensional) digital models into valid printable models … par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds)
generating a 3D shape by: (Fogel_2011 par 25: “A method of transforming an inconsistent 3D
(three-dimensional) model of one or more 3D objects into a valid printable 3D model”
outputting one or more closed and manifold sketches, (par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds) generating one or more 3D portions based on the outputted one or more closed and manifold sketches, Fogel_2011 par 25: “A method of transforming an inconsistent 3D (three-dimensional) model of one or more 3D objects into a valid printable 3D model” par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds)
par 14: “A model is printable if it consists of a set of closed 2D (two-dimensional) manifolds)
Fang_2014 and Fogel_2011 do not expressly recite each 3D portion being an extrusion or a revolution of one of
Shum_2000 however makes obvious each 3D portion being an extrusion or a revolution of one of
PNG
media_image9.png
261
525
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
822
895
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiners notes: See figures above which depict the sketches forming 3D portions through extrusions to form different regions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. :
US 8.274,514 B1 (Martino_2012), teaches a workflow which modifies and segments 2D Sketch Style Drawings.
US 2008/0297503 Al (Dickinson_2008), identifies candidate 2D boundary loops which are used to construct a 3D model based on 2D projections.
“Decomposition of a 2D assembly drawing into 3D part drawings”(Tanaka_1998) , decomposes a 2D assembly drawing into 3D parts so they can be constructed into 3D models.
PNG
media_image11.png
366
1297
media_image11.png
Greyscale
“Photo-Sketching: Inferring Contour Drawings from Images” (Li_2019) vectorization of images to form sketches from photographs for edge detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights