DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-15 are found not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a).
Claims 1- 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017.
Claims 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017, further in the view of Daly, John M (US 20030122818 A1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of Nagoshi Atsushi (JP 2017-167808A), and further in the view of Loveland; James B (US 6037945 A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017, further in the view of Daly, John M (US 20030122818 A1) further in the view of Kripac, Jiri (US 20030210242 A1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017, further in the view of Daly, John M (US 20030122818 A1) further in the view of Nagoshi Atsushi (JP 2017-167808A).
This action is non final rejection.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made for applicants claimed foreign priority date for application number of JP 2022-127396, filed on 08/09/2022, and English translation is needed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 09/18/2023 and 04/13/2026 are reviewed and considered. See attached documents.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function.
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Data acquisition unit”,” reception unit”, “extraction unit”, “plane determination unit”, “polyhedron creation unit” and “conversation unit” in claim 1 -15.
“Determination unit” and “notification unit” in claim 12.
“Output unit” in claim 13 and 15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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.
Specially claim discloses “Data acquisition unit”,” reception unit”, “extraction unit”, “plane determination unit”, “polyhedron creation unit” and “conversation unit” in claim 1 -15, “Determination unit” and “notification unit” in claim 12 and “Output unit” in claim 13 and 15, lack specific structure identified in the specification. The specification does not appear to disclose any structure for the modules for the system claims. Therefore, what structure is included in these modules is indefinite. These limitations are inherited in claims 1-15. See specific mapping for each module reference as recited in the specification in the rejection under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims recite the limitation
“The determination” in claim 4.
“a reference bottom surface” in claim 8.
“The output unit” in claim 15.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-15 are directed to apparatus, however the units disclosed therein do not have structural support in the specification. The specification therefore lacks written description in view of citation for each unit below.
Unit invoking 112/6th
Lacking structure support in the specification
Data acquisition unit
[0009], [0082], [0083], [0086], [0108], [0195]
Reception unit
[0010], [0015]- [0017], [0019]- [0026], [0033]- [0035], [0082], [0083], [0087]- [0089], [0091] –[0092], [0097]-[0099], [0104], [0107], [0109], [0110], [0114], [0116], [0117], [0126], [0127], [0132], [0135], [0137]- [0152], [0181], [0185]- [0194]
Extraction unit
[0011], [0012], [0018], [0019], [0082], [0083], [0086], [0089], [0091], [0128] – [0131], [0135], [0138] – [0151], [0154], [0182]- [0183]
Plane determination unit
[0012] – [0013], [0016] – [0026], [0082], [0091], [0093], [0136], [0142], [0148], [0155], [0162] – [0176], [0181], [0184], [0185]
Polyhedron creation unit
[0013] – [0014], [0019]- [0020], [0024], [0028], [0030], [0035], [0037], [0082], [0092] [0093], [0113], [0134]- [0136], [0140] – [0148], [0153] – [0160], [0177], [0183] – [0194]
Conversion unit
[0013], [0028], [0031], [0035], [0082], [0083], [0095], [0107], [0112]- [0113], [0177], [0192], [0194]
Determination unit
[0082], [0094], [0157]- [0159], [0191]
Notification unit
[0158], [0191]
Output unit
[0029], [0032], [0036], [0082], [0083], [0095], [0112] – [0113], [0192], [0194]
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention recites a judicial exception, which is directed to judicial exception of an abstract idea, as
it has not been integrated into practical application, and the claim further does not recite
significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Yes, claims 1-15 are directed to apparatus, which is a manufacture, so it is under a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Yes, the claims recite abstract idea. Claims 1-15 recites abstract
ideas, which falls under a mathematical concept/ mental process. Abstract ideas are bolded as shown below.
Regarding claim 1:
a data acquisition unit that acquires the mesh data; - (insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
a reception unit that receives a designated point on the mesh data and a user input related to a constraint condition for each of surfaces of the polyhedron; -(insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
an that extracts a plane candidate based on the designated point received by the reception unit from the mesh data; under its broadest reasonable interpretation this claim recites a mental process, since a human mind can extract geometric plane candidates from points by connecting the points through observation and can select a candidate plane by making judgment with the help of pen and paper.
a that determines a plane constituting the polyhedron based on the plane candidate extracted by the extraction unit and the constraint condition; under it broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation recites a mental process since a human mind can make a selection of a plane by comparing the plane with the constraint condition and make a judgment on which plane are good through humans ability of observation, evaluation and judgment.
a that creates the polyhedron including the plane determined by the ; and - under its broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation recites a mental process, since a human mind can readily mentally visualize a 3D cuboid, e.g. a cube, and may readily use pen and paper as a physical aid, e.g. creating 3D perspectives on the 2D paper so as to better visualize the 3D cuboid in their own mind, or writing down a table with dimensions and positions of the vertices of the cuboid .
a conversion unit that converts the polyhedron created by the polyhedron creation unit into the CAD data (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Step 2A: Prong 2: No
The above judicial exceptions do not recite additional elements that integrate
the exceptions into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not
have additional elements of a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on or
use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception.
Claims recite gathering data, outputting information and mere instruction to apply an exception, which is insignificant extra solution activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), and claims also recites data manipulation by “displaying” outputs - Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(g).
As of claim 1: these limitations recite data gathering and mere instruction to apply an exception:
a data acquisition unit that acquires the mesh data; - (insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
a reception unit that receives a designated point on the mesh data and a user input related to a constraint condition for each of surfaces of the polyhedron; - (insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
a conversion unit that converts the polyhedron created by the polyhedron creation unit into the CAD data (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Step 2B: No:
The claims do not cite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above claim 1 merely use different units as a tool to gather data and to perform the abstract idea. As of claim 1 “Data acquisition unit”,” reception unit”, “extraction unit”, “plane determination unit”, “polyhedron creation unit” and “conversation unit” are additional elements but they are not significantly more since, they are used as a tool to perform the claimed invention. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the "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".
Claim 1 also recites insignificant extra activity of data gathering using “a data acquisition unit that acquires…” and “a reception unit that receives …” which are insignificant extra-solution activity – this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: "iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); 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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;... i. Recording a customer's order, Apple, Inc. V. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);"
“a conversion unit that converts the polyhedron created by the polyhedron creation unit into the CAD data” - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) - The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d in 1743.
Generally, the dependent claims inherently recite abstract ideas based on the
above analysis and let’s see if there are any significant more claim limitations exist for
the dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2:
the reception unit is capable of receiving, as the user input related to the constraint condition for each of the surfaces of the polyhedron, designation of a position and an attitude with respect to another surface or a position and an attitude in a predetermined coordinate system,- it further defines the type of data received though the reception unit, so it further defines data gathering process and there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the plane determination unit determines the plane constituting the polyhedron based on the plane candidate extracted by receiving a user input of the designated point through the reception unit and designation of the constraint condition received by the reception unit – it further defines the abstract idea of determining the plane, an additional element of the plane determination unit is merely used as a tool so, there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 3:
the extraction unit extracts a group of polygons existing within a predetermined angle range with respect to a normal of a polygon including a designated point among polygons continuous with the polygon including the designated point, and extracts a plane approximate to the extracted group of polygons as the plane candidate – it further defines abstract idea of extracting plane based on predetermined criteria by using additional element of extract unit as a tool so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 4:
The polyhedron creation unit determines whether the constraint condition has been designated by the reception unit for a plurality of planes constituting the polyhedron, and uses the plane candidate extracted by the extraction unit as a surface constituting the polyhedron based on a result of the determination. – it further narrow abstract idea and use an additional element of polyhedron creation unit merely as a tool, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 5:
the polyhedron creation unit determines whether the constraint condition has been designated by the reception unit for a plurality of planes constituting the polyhedron, and uses the plane determined by the plane determination unit based on the constraint condition received by the reception unit as a surface constituting the polyhedron based on the determination result – it further defines the abstract idea using an additional element of polyhedron creation unit merely as a tool , so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 6:
the reception unit receives designation of a position and an attitude with respect to a first plane forming a reference bottom surface of the polyhedron, as the constraint condition for a second plane forming a reference wall surface adjacent to the first plane, and - insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), So there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the plane determination unit creates a plane at the constrained position and attitude with respect to the reference bottom surface as the second plane – it further defines abstract idea of creating a plane using an additional element of plane determination unit as merely a tool so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 7:
the reception unit is capable of receiving designation of a position and an attitude with respect to an apparatus coordinate system as the constraint condition for the first plane - insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), So there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 8:
the plane determination unit determines a third plane, a fourth plane, and a fifth plane that are adjacent to the first plane, which is a reference bottom surface, and form side wall surfaces sequentially continuous with the second plane, which is a reference wall surface, and a sixth plane that forms a top surface facing the first plane – it further defines the abstract idea of determining the planes using an additional element of plane determination unit merely as a tool, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the polyhedron creation unit creates a hexahedron including the first plane, the second plane, the third plane, the fourth plane, the fifth plane, and the sixth plane created by the plane determination unit,- it further defines the abstract idea of creating hexahedron using an additional element of polyhedron creation unit merely as a tool, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the reception unit receives designation of a position and an attitude with respect to at least one of the reference bottom surface or the reference wall surface as the constraint condition for each of the third plane, the fourth plane, the fifth plane, and the sixth plane - insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), So there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 9:
The plane determination unit creates the sixth plane based on a position and an attitude with respect to the reference bottom surface and the designated point received by the reception unit - it further defines the abstract idea of determining the planes using an additional element of plane determination unit merely as a tool, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 10:
The plane determination unit creates the sixth plane using a plane that is parallel to the first plane, which is a reference bottom surface, and intersects the second
plane, which is a reference wall surfaces, the third plane, the fourth plane, and the fifth plane - it further defines the abstract idea of determining the planes using an additional element of plane determination unit merely as a tool, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 11:
the polyhedron creation unit calculates an intersection point of three adjacent planes among six planes created by the plane determination unit, and creates a hexahedron having the calculated intersection points as a vertex - it further defines the abstract idea of calculating an intersection of planes using an additional element of polyhedron creation unit, merely as a tool, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 12:
a determination unit that determines whether or not creation of the polyhedron by the polyhedron creation unit is possible – it recites another abstract idea of determining whether or not creation of the polyhedron is possible using an additional element of determination unit, merely as a tool, so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
a notification unit that issues a notification in a case where the creation of the polyhedron by the determination unit is not possible – insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 13:
an output unit that outputs the CAD data converted by the conversion unit - insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
wherein the polyhedron creation unit is capable of creating a plurality of the polyhedrons – it further defines abstract idea and there is no additional element which is significant more.
the conversion unit converts the plurality of polyhedrons into one piece of assembled CAD data - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the output unit outputs the one piece of assembled CAD data - insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 14:
the reception unit receives selection of one mode out of a first mode in which, as the constraint condition for a predetermined surface of one polyhedron, designation of a position and an attitude with respect to another surface of the one polyhedron is received, and a second mode in which designation of a position and an attitude of a surface of another polyhedron is received as the constraint condition for the predetermined surface of the one polyhedron - insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), So there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Regarding claim 15:
the reception unit is capable of further receiving a user input for creating a geometric element from the mesh data - insignificant extra-solution activity –data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), So there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the conversion unit converts the polyhedron created by the polyhedron creation unit and the geometric element created based on the user input received by the reception unit into one piece of assembled CAD data - - insignificant extra-solution activity – mere instruction to apply an exception- See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
the output unit outputs the one piece of assembled CAD data - insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g), so there is no additional element which is significantly more.
Generally, based on the above claim by claim analysis and claims as a whole, the claims do not recite any additional element which is significantly more than the abstract idea of the claimed invention. The claim is merely a mental process, and different units are merely used as a tool, so there is not significantly more
than abstract idea since there is no improvement in the recited units or improvement on the recited technology. "Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Therefore claims 1-15 are not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A).
As of claim 1, Yashiki teaches A reverse engineering support apparatus that converts a polyhedron, created from mesh data obtained by measuring a three-dimensional shape of a workpiece, into CAD data and outputs the CAD data, (Section 1, “introduction”, Therefore, in this study, with the aim of realizing reverse engineering, we focus on mechanical parts and aim to extract features from measurement data to generate CAD data. In this paper, we propose a method for extracting features that satisfy the constraints mentioned above, targeting basic features (planes, cylindrical surfaces, and conical surfaces). We also apply this method to actual mechanical parts to verify its effectiveness… section 2, “CAD data generation method”, To extract feature information (planes, cylindrical surfaces, and conical surfaces) from triangular polygon data (measurement data), this study employs the "Surface Region Expansion Method)
the reverse engineering support apparatus comprising: a data acquisition unit that acquires the mesh data; (section 4.2 “Application Example to Mechanical Parts”, Measurements were performed using an X-ray CT device on the mechanical part shown in Figure 5(a), and the proposed method was applied to the triangular polygon data obtained from the measurements (Figure 5(b)) to generate CAD data containing features (Figure S(c))).
a reception unit that receives a designated point on the mesh data and a user input related to a constraint condition for each of surfaces of the polyhedron; (section, 2. “CAD Data Generation Method”, The user specifies the type of feature to be extracted and the seed point… section 3,” Method for Extracting Constrained features from Measurement Data”, mechanical parts may have constraints specified for features, such as being perpendicular to a certain reference plane, When assembling CAD data with other CAD data or defining fillet surfaces, it is necessary to extract features that satisfy the specified constraints when converting measurement data into CAD data).
an extraction unit that extracts a plane candidate based on the designated point received by the reception unit from the mesh data; (section, 2. “CAD Data Generation Method”, The initial values of the feature's geometric parameters are determined from the seed points. Here, "shape parameters" refer to the parameters used to define the shape of a feature (Table 1)). As it is shown on table 1, shape parameters include planes.
a plane determination unit that determines a plane constituting the polyhedron based on the plane candidate extracted by the extraction unit and the constraint condition; (section, 2. “CAD Data Generation Method”, 4. Once the area expansion process is complete, the shape parameters are updated by performing a fitting process using the least squares method on the area belonging to the feature. Steps 3 and 4 are then repeated iteratively, 5. If the area is no longer expanded even after updating the shape parameters, terminate the iterative process. Finally, determine the shape parameters by performing a fitting process using the least squares method on the area belonging to the feature).
a conversion unit that converts the polyhedron created by the polyhedron creation unit into the CAD data (abstract, This paper proposes a new method for constructing CAD data from 3D sensed data for the purpose of realizing reverse engineering…section 4.2 “Application Example to Mechanical Parts”, the proposed method was applied to the triangular polygon data obtained from the measurements (Figure 5(b)) to generate CAD data containing features (Figure S(c))).
Yashiki does not explicitly teach a polyhedron creation unit that creates the polyhedron including the plane determined by the plane determination unit.
While Ravnikar teaches a polyhedron creation unit that creates the polyhedron including the plane determined by the plane determination unit ([0370], Solid block Wi is a mesh constructed from planes PL, PR, PD, PT, PF, PB. Each plane divides a space into two halfspaces and one of them can be considered full. By convention, the halfspace in which the normal vector of the plane points is considered empty, the other half as solid. Solid block Wi is then constructed as an intersection of six planes).
Yashiki and Ravnikar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches reverse engineering and designing of 3D object with CAD. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to Integrate Ravnikar’s teaching of polygon creation into Yashiki’s teaching of constructing CAD data from 3D sensed data for the purpose of realizing reverse engineering using user inputs including seed points and constraints.
The motivation would have been to create effective and valid a method to extract features from measurement data to generate CAD data, extracting features that satisfy the constraints mentioned above, targeting basic features (planes, cylindrical surfaces, and conical surfaces) (Yashiki, abstract, Introduction) and to improve 3D design of objects using CAD in a flexible and controllable way without significant effort on the part of the user (Ravnikar, [0013] [0020]).
As of claim 2, the modified model of Yashiki-Ravnikar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Yashiki also teaches the reception unit is capable of receiving, as the user input related to the constraint condition for each of the surfaces of the polyhedron, designation of a position and an attitude with respect to another surface or a position and an attitude in a predetermined coordinate system, and (Table 2 “constraint conditions”, plane with constraint of Perpendicular to the reference plane Parallel to the reference plane…Section 4.1 “Accuracy Verification for Constrained Feature Extraction”, The results are shown in Table 3,The deviation from the constraint conditions was evaluated based on the angle between the reference plane's normal vector and the extracted plane's normal vector for Figure 3(a), and the angle between
the reference plane's normal vector and the extracted cylindrical surface's central axis vector for Figure 3(b)).
the plane determination unit determines the plane constituting the polyhedron based on the plane candidate extracted by receiving a user input of the designated point through the reception unit and designation of the constraint condition received by the reception unit (section, 2. “CAD Data Generation Method”, 3. Using the seed point as the initial value, search for an area within the triangular polygon that satisfies the following conditions, and expand the area belonging to the feature. - The distance between the triangular polygon and the feature is less than or equal to the threshold. - The angle between the normal vector of the triangular polygon and the normal vector of the feature is less than or equal to the threshold. 4. Once the area expansion process is complete, the shape parameters are updated by performing a fitting process using the least squares method on the area belonging to the feature. Steps 3 and 4 are then repeated iteratively, 5. If the area is no longer expanded even after updating the shape parameters, terminate the iterative process. Finally, determine the shape parameters by performing a fitting process using the least squares method on the area belonging to the feature).
As of claim 3 the modified model of Yashiki-Ravnikar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Yashiki also teaches the extraction unit extracts a group of polygons existing within a predetermined angle range with respect to a normal of a polygon including a designated point among polygons continuous with the polygon including the designated point, and extracts a plane approximate to the extracted group of polygons as the plane candidate (section:2, “CAD Data Generation Method”, 2. The initial values of the feature's geometric parameters are determined from the seed points. 3. Using the seed point as the initial value, search for an area within the triangular
polygon that satisfies the following conditions and expand the area belonging to the feature. - The distance between the triangular polygon and the feature is less than or equal to the threshold. - The angle between the normal vector of the triangular polygon and the normal vector of the feature is less than or equal to the threshold), As it is cited above Yashiki teaches setting the seed point as an initial value, searches for a region in which a distance between the triangular polygon and the feature is equal to or less than a threshold value and an angle formed by a normal vector of the triangular polygon and a normal vector of the feature is equal to or less than a threshold value among the triangular polygons.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017.
As of claim 4, the modified model of Yashiki -Ravnikar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Yashiki also teaches the polyhedron creation unit determines whether the constraint condition has been designated by the reception unit for a plurality of planes constituting the polyhedron, and (section: 3 “Method for Extracting Constrained features from Measurement Data”, When assembling CAD data with other CAD data or defining fillet surfaces, it is necessary to extract features that satisfy the specified constraints when converting measurement data into CAD data, Constraints specified for features are defined by imposing constraints on geometric parameters, Therefore1 to extract features that satisfy these constraints from measurement data, one can determine the geometric parameters by performing a fitting process using the least squares method under the aforementioned constraints).
The modified model does not explicitly teach uses the plane candidate extracted by the extraction unit as a surface constituting the polyhedron based on a result of the determination.
While Nan teaches uses the plane candidate extracted by the extraction unit as a surface constituting the polyhedron based on a result of the determination (section 5. “Face Selection”, Given N candidate faces F = {fi|1 ≤ i ≤ N} generated in the previous step, we select a subset of these candidate faces that can best describe the geometry of the object and ensure that the chosen faces form a manifold and watertight polygonal surface).
Nan considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Nan’s teaching of generating a candidate faces and used for the reconstruction of polygon surface into the modified model in order to create a polyhedron.
The motivation would have been to reconstruct lightweight polygonal surfaces from point cloud by generating a reasonably large set of face candidates by intersecting the extracted planar primitives. Then an optimal subset of the candidate faces is selected through optimization, and this helps to recover sharp features and is robust to noise, outliers, and missing data (Nan, abstract).
As of claim 5, the modified model of Yashiki -Ravnikar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Yashiki also teaches the polyhedron creation unit determines whether the constraint condition has been designated by the reception unit for a plurality of planes constituting the polyhedron, and (section: 3, “Method for Extracting Constrained features from Measurement Data”, When assembling CAD data with other CAD data or defining fillet surfaces, it is necessary to extract features that satisfy the specified constraints when converting measurement data into CAD data, Constraints specified for features are defined by imposing constraints on geometric parameters, Therefore1 to extract features that satisfy these constraints from measurement data, one can determine the geometric parameters by performing a fitting process using the least squares method under the aforementioned constraints)
The modified model does not explicitly teach uses the plane determined by the plane determination unit based on the constraint condition received by the reception unit as a surface constituting the polyhedron based on the determination result.
While Nan teaches uses the plane determined by the plane determination unit based on the constraint condition received by the reception unit as a surface constituting the polyhedron based on the determination result (section 5; “Face selection” We choose an optimal subset of the candidate faces to assemble a manifold and watertight polygonal surface model. To do so, we formulate the face selection as a binary linear programming problem. Our objective function combines three terms that favor data fitting, point coverage, and model complexity, respectively. We also formulate hard constraints that ensure the final model is manifold and watertight).
Nan considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Nan’s teaching of generating a candidate faces and used for the reconstruction of polygon surface based on the specified constraints into the modified model in order to create a polyhedron.
The motivation would have been to reconstruct lightweight polygonal surfaces from point cloud by generating a reasonably large set of face candidates by intersecting the extracted planar primitives. Then an optimal subset of the candidate faces is selected through optimization, and this helps to recover sharp features and is robust to noise, outliers, and missing data (Nan, abstract).
Claims 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A).
As of claim 6 the modified model of Yashiki- Ravnikar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
While Williams teaches the reception unit receives designation of a position and an attitude with respect to a first plane forming a reference bottom surface of the polyhedron, as the constraint condition for a second plane forming a reference wall surface adjacent to the first plane, and ([0070], In some embodiments, a primary plane is identified by selecting the plane that has the largest number of associated points. In some embodiments, a secondary plane is identified by selecting the plane that has the largest number of associated points among the planes that are within some angular tolerance of being perpendicular to the primary plane. For example, in some embodiments, an angular tolerance of 5 degrees is used, and the secondary plane is selected among the planes whose normal formed an angle between 85 and 95 degrees with the normal of the primary plane).
Williams is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches construction of 3D models for one or more objects by extracting shapes from a point cloud. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Williams teaching of generating a first and second plane based on constraints and angular tolerance into the modified model to determined the first and second planes designation location.
The motivation would have been to create efficiently creating a virtual 3D model from a point cloud of points obtained by scanning a scene and a, robust method that enables a user to easily select a set of scanned points and extract an appropriate shape that accurately fits those points allows the creation of virtual 3D models of industrial facilities to become more economically viable (Williams [0094]).
The modified model of Yashiki- Ravnikar-Williams do not explicitly teach the plane determination unit creates a plane at the constrained position and attitude with respect to the reference bottom surface as the second plane.
While Shimizu teaches the plane determination unit creates a plane at the constrained position and attitude with respect to the reference bottom surface as the second plane (Col. 6 line 23- 30, An example of the combination of geometric constraints for determining one plane and the rule for detecting the combination and calculating the dependency relation are shown in FIG. 3 and Table 2. A surface @f in FIG. 3 is provided with a point @v1 (on) on the surface, the distance (dist) from a point @v2 and the angle (angle) with a surface @f1). As it is cited, position and attitude are interpreted as the distance and the angle with surface.
Shimizu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches generating of a geometrical model. Therefore, it would be obvious to try by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Shimizu’s teaching of generating a plane based on the rules and dependences including angle with a surface into the modified model to generate a second plane.
The motivation would have been to provide a method and apparatus wherein a geometric model accurately reflecting the intention of the designer can easily be built without having any constraint on the operation such as the input order in generation or modification of the geometric model (Shimizu, Col. 2 line 28- 33).
As of claim 8, the modified model of Yashiki- Ravnikar-Williams-Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and Ravnikar also teaches the polyhedron creation unit creates a hexahedron including the first plane, the second plane, the third plane, the fourth plane, the fifth plane, and the sixth plane created by the plane determination unit, and ([0519], FIG. 44 d shows the final solid block Si, belonging to centre base Ci. Solid block Si is a mesh constructed from the intersection of the six planes L, R, D, T, P and B).
The reception unit receives designation of a position and an attitude with respect to at least one of the reference bottom surface or the reference wall surface as the constraint condition for each of the third plane, the fourth plane, the fifth plane, and the sixth plane ([0514], Plane D is constructed from three points PBTi, F1 and F2. The plane's normal vector lies in the opposite halfspace to the point F3… [0515], Plane T is constructed from three points PTTi, F3 and F4. The plane's normal vector lies in the opposite halfspace to the point F1… [0516], Plane B is constructed from three points F1, F2 and F3. The plane's normal vector lies in the opposite halfspace to the point PTri).
While Shimizu also teaches the plane determination unit determines a third plane, a fourth plane, and a fifth plane that are adjacent to the first plane, which is a reference bottom surface, and form side wall surfaces sequentially continuous with the second plane, which is a reference wall surface, and a sixth plane that forms a top surface facing the first plane (Col 11, line 14- 26, The examples shown in FIGS. 11 and 12 will now be reconsidered. First, it is assumed that the solid block becoming the base has already been determined and its six planes have the following dependency order data and plane attribute values as shown in FIG. 13. A plane attribute value is (a point on the plane) +(a normal vector).<f0', {{F0}:=(100, 0, 0)+(1, 0, 0)}>, <f1', {{F1}: =(0, 100, 0)+(0, 1, 0)}> , <f2', {{F2}: =(0, 0, 0)+(-1, 0, 0)}>, <f5', {{F5}: =(0, 0, 200)+(0, 0, 1)}>).
As of claim 9, the modified model of Yashiki- Ravnikar-Williams-Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and Ravnikar also teaches the plane determination unit creates the sixth plane based on a position and an attitude with respect to the reference bottom surface and the designated point received by the reception unit ([0511], These objects are shown in FIG. 44 a. FIG. 44 b shows the definition of the auxiliary planes L, R, D, T, P and B. All of them are defined by three points. The points Fi represent the vertices of the polygon F… [0517] Plane P is constructed from three points PLTi, PBTi and PRTi. The plane's normal vector lies in the opposite halfspace to the point F1).
As of claim 10, the modified model of Yashiki- Ravnikar-Williams-Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and Shimizu also teaches the plane determination unit creates the sixth plane using a plane that is parallel to the first plane, which is a reference bottom surface, and intersects the second plane, which is a reference wall surfaces, the third plane, the fourth plane, and the fifth plane (Col. 11 line 14- 26, The examples shown in FIGS. 11 and 12 will now be reconsidered. First, it is assumed that the solid block becoming the base has already been determined and its six planes have the following dependency order data and plane attribute values as shown in FIG. 13. A plane attribute value is (a point on the plane) + (a normal vector). <f0', {{F0}:=(100, 0, 0)+(1, 0, 0)}>, <f1', {{F1}: =(0, 100, 0)+(0, 1, 0)}>, <f2', {{F2}: =(0, 0, 0)+(-1, 0, 0)}>, <f5', {{F5}: =(0, 0, 200)+(0, 0, 1)}>). As it is listed above a six shaped box is created and as it is shown on figure 13, f0 which is implemented as first plane and f5 which is implemented as six plane are parallel and f1,f2,f3 and f4 are the wall surface.
As of claim 11, the modified model of Yashiki- Ravnikar-Williams-Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and Shimizu also teaches the polyhedron creation unit calculates an intersection point of three adjacent planes among six planes created by the plane determination unit, and creates a hexahedron having the calculated intersection points as a vertex (Figure 13. , Col. 6 line 12- 17, Geometric constraints can be used to locally calculate part of a shape. For instance, if two planes are intersecting, the equation of the line of intersection can be calculated by the geometric constraint of "intersection" and the equations of the two planes. Also, if the distance between the planes is given, one plane can be determined by the geometric size constraint of "distance" and the equation of the other plane…Col. 11 line 12- 19, The examples shown in FIGS. 11 and 12 will now be reconsidered. First, it is assumed that the solid block becoming the base has already been determined and its six planes have the following dependency order data and plane attribute values as shown in FIG. 13. A plane attribute value is (a point on the plane) +(a normal vector)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017.
As of claim 7, the modified model of Yashiki-Ravnikar-Williams- Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 6, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7.
While Nan teaches the reception unit is capable of receiving designation of a position and an attitude with respect to an apparatus coordinate system as the constraint condition for the first plane (section 4. “Candidate Face Generation”, Specifically, we first compute the angle of the supporting planes for each pair of planar segments. Then, starting from the pair (si,sj) with the smallest angle, we test if the following two conditions are met. First, the angle between the two planes is lower than a threshold, i.e., angle (si, sj) < θt. Second, more than a specified number (denoted as Nt) of points lie on the supporting planes of both segments. If both conditions are satisfied, we merge the two planar segments and fit a new supporting plane using PCA).
Nan considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Nan’s teaching of computing the angle planes and checking with the conditions to generate a planar segment into the modified model in order to create a plane for the polyhedron.
The motivation would have been to reconstruct lightweight polygonal surfaces from point cloud by generating a reasonably large set of face candidates by intersecting the extracted planar primitives. Then an optimal subset of the candidate faces is selected through optimization, and this helps to recover sharp features and is robust to noise, outliers, and missing data (Nan, abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017, further in the view of Daly, John M (US 20030122818 A1).
As of claim 12, the modified model of Yashiki-Ravnikar-Williams-Shimizu-Nan teaches all the limitations of claim 7, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 12.
While Daly teaches a determination unit that determines whether or not creation of the polyhedron by the polyhedron creation unit is possible; and ([0038], If there are lines that remain to be tested, then the digital device selects an untested line (block 470) or a new first line and second line comparison pair and tests the lines for crossover. If there are no more untested lines, then the polygon is a valid polygon (block 480) and the valid polygon algorithm 400 is complete).
a notification unit that issues a notification in a case where the creation of the polyhedron by the determination unit is not possible ([0038], According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the digital device will warn the user if the user has inputted an invalid polygon. The digital device may highlight the lines that cross and allow the user an opportunity to fix the error. The digital device may also refuse any requests for calculations until the invalid polygon has been corrected).
Daly is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches checking the validity of a polygons. Therefore, it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date based on Daly’s teaching of the invalidity of the polygon and notifying the user, to create a notification system to notify the user if the creation of the polyhedron is possible or not in the modified model.
The motivation would have been to detect the presence of an invalid polygon drawn by a user, using a simple line crossover algorithm that does not require a significant amount of memory or processing power and can reduce the overall computation time required to test for validity (Daly, [0008] – [0009]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of Nagoshi Atsushi (JP 2017-167808A), and further in the view of Loveland; James B (US 6037945 A).
As of claim 13, the modified model of Yashiki-Ravnikar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 13.
While Nagoshi teaches an output unit that outputs the CAD data converted by the conversion unit, ([0029], The display unit 7 also displays the CAD data created by the CAD model conversion program and the CAD model processing program).
the conversion unit converts the plurality of polyhedrons into one piece of assembled CAD data, and ([0004], In this three-dimensional shape measurement system, three-dimensional images acquired by a surface shape measuring device, an internal shape measuring device, and a non-destructive measurement device are converted into point cloud data by a point cloud data conversion input synthesis device, this point cloud data is converted into polygon data by a three-dimensional CAD model conversion processing device, and this is further converted into CAD data, etc.).
the output unit outputs the one piece of assembled CAD data ([0041], The CAD data includes CAD data W1 corresponding to the first image data of the vehicle component W (hereinafter referred to as "first CAD data of the vehicle component"), CAD data W2 corresponding to the second image data of the vehicle component W (hereinafter referred to as "second CAD data of the vehicle component"), and individual CAD data for each component A to C).
Nagoshi considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches acquiring three-dimensional data of vehicle components by reverse engineering. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Nagashi’s teaching of outputting CAD data and converting a plurality of vehicle components into a CAD data, into the modified model to convert polyhedron from a mesh data to a CAD data.
The motivation would have been to provide a three-dimensional data creation method that can accurately acquire three-dimensional data of vehicle components consisting of a large number of components to achieve highly accurate structural analysis of a vehicle component, by acquire detailed three-dimensional data for each component of the vehicle component (Nagoshi, [0006] – [0008]).
The modified model of Yashiki-Ravnikar-Nagoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the polyhedron creation unit is capable of creating a plurality of the polyhedrons.
While Loveland teaches wherein the polyhedron creation unit is capable of creating a plurality of the polyhedrons, (Col.7 line 41- 49,
FIG. 4 depicts a simplified definition of a polyhedron defining a first room, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As described above, an estimation polyhedron is comprised of a plurality of polygons forming an enclosed volume consistent with the modeling structure of the present invention. In the present example, each polygon is defined as a series of vertices with a minimum number of three vertices necessary for defining a plane or polygon).
Loveland is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches construction of a target structure including a polyhedron. Therefore, it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date based on Loveland’s teaching of creating of a plurality of polyhedron to create a plurality of polyhedron in the modified model.
The motivation would have been to provide a method for modeling a chamber to enable estimation of chamber attributes for each of the facets or planes associated with the chamber undergoing estimation and to provide a method for graphically estimating attributes of a room through a user interface capable of intuitively sizing a graphical representation or model of the room or chamber undergoing estimation to provide a graphical approximation of the chamber or room undergoing estimation and associating attributes with the facets or planes of the model (Loveland. Col. 3 line 8- 25).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017, further in the view of Daly, John M (US 20030122818 A1) further in the view of Kripac, Jiri (US 20030210242 A1).
As of claim 14, the modified model of Yashiki-Ravnikar-Williams-Shimizu-Nan-Daly teaches all the limitations of claim 12, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14.
While Kripac teaches the reception unit receives selection of one mode out of a first mode in which, as the constraint condition for a predetermined surface of one polyhedron, designation of a position and an attitude with respect to another surface of the one polyhedron is received, and a second mode in which designation of a position and an attitude of a surface of another polyhedron is received as the constraint condition for the predetermined surface of the one polyhedron ([0010], Two constraints control the behavior of the face repositioning operation. These two constraints are selectable by the user, who thus controls the outcome of the face repositioning operation… [0011], The first constraint constrains the planes of the faces adjacent to the face being repositioned not to change (i.e., the slopes of adjacent faces remain fixed). The adjacent faces' edges and vertices may change, however, such as the faces may be stretched or shrunk… [0012], The second constraint constrains the geometry of the face being repositioned to be fixed (i.e., the face is repositioned as rigid and only its location changes)).
Kripac is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches a constraint that controls a behavior of a repositioning operation for the face of solid body is specified. Therefore is would be obvious to try by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date based on Kripac’s teaching of adjusting the face of the solid body by repositioning the selected first face, wherein the repositioning operation is constrained in accordance with the specified first constraint into the modified model to position a predetermined surface of one polyhedron based on constraint condition.
The motivation would have been to repositions a face of a boundary representation while providing a user with options to control the repositioning operation, thereby providing the users the capability to control or elect between multiple different types of the face dragging operation (Kripac, [0005] – [0012]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIKI et al., "A Method for Generating CAD Data from Measurement Data Based on Feature Extraction", 16th Design Engineering and System Department Lectures and Papers Collection, November 2006, in the view of Ravnikar; Edvard Edo (US 20120169727 A), further in the view of WILLIAMS; Kevin S. (US 20160232259 A1) and further in the view of Shimizu; Shuichi (US 5497452 A), further in the view of Nan, Liangliang, and Peter Wonka. "Polyfit: Polygonal surface reconstruction from point clouds." 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, 2017, further in the view of Daly, John M (US 20030122818 A1) further in the view of Nagoshi Atsushi (JP 2017-167808A).
As of claim 15, the modified model of Yashiki-Ravnikar-Williams-Shimizu-Nan-Daly teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and Yashiki also teaches the reception unit is capable of further receiving a user input for creating a geometric element from the mesh data (Section 3; “Method for Extracting Constrained features from Measurement Data”, Constraints specified for features are defined by imposing constraints on geometric parameters, Therefore1 to extract features that satisfy these constraints from measurement data, one can determine the geometric parameters by performing a fitting process using the least squares method under the aforementioned constraints. In this study, we developed a function to extract features that satisfy the constraint conditions shown in Table 2. To determine the geometric parameters using the least squares method under the constraints corresponding to each constraint condition, we employed a method that substitutes the constraints into the objective function used in the least squares method and searches for the geometric parameters that minimize the resulting objective function).
The modified model does not explicitly teach the conversion unit converts the polyhedron created by the polyhedron creation unit and the geometric element created based on the user input received by the reception unit into one piece of assembled CAD data, and the output unit outputs the one piece of assembled CAD data.
While Nagoshi teaches the conversion unit converts the polyhedron created by the polyhedron creation unit and the geometric element created based on the user input received by the reception unit into one piece of assembled CAD data, ([0011] CAD data for each component must be obtained, and the obtained CAD data for each component must be assembled to construct the CAD data of the vehicle component…[0041], The CAD data includes CAD data W1 corresponding to the first image data of the vehicle component W (hereinafter referred to as "first CAD data of the vehicle component"), CAD data W2 corresponding to the second image data of the vehicle component W (hereinafter referred to as "second CAD data of the vehicle component"), and individual CAD data for each component A to C). As it is cited above, the CAD data for each component is obtained and the CAD data includes the first and second CAD data.
the output unit outputs the one piece of assembled CAD data ([0041], Furthermore, as shown in Figure 5, the operator displays the first CAD data W1 of the vehicle component W and the CAD data related to each component A to C on the display unit 7. The operator may also display the second CAD data W2 (not shown) of the vehicle component W on the display unit 7 as needed).
Nagoshi considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches acquiring three-dimensional data of vehicle components by reverse engineering. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Nagashi’s teaching of outputting CAD data and converting a plurality of vehicle components CAD data into a combined one CAD data, into the modified model to convert polyhedron from a mesh data to a CAD data.
The motivation would have been to provide a three-dimensional data creation method that can accurately acquire three-dimensional data of vehicle components consisting of a large number of components to achieve highly accurate structural analysis of a vehicle component, by acquire detailed three-dimensional data for each component of the vehicle component (Nagoshi, [0006] – [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FUJIWARA M (US 20170372489 A1, Date Published 2017-12-28), this application is similar to the claimed invention since it teaches generating a point cloud for representing the three-dimensional shape of a measurement target object from the respective three-dimensional positions.
BAE SEOCK HOON (KR 100753537 B1, Date, published 2007-08-30) is similar to the claimed invention since it teaches reverse modeling using mesh data with feature and to perform a reverse modeling work of following a process performed by the first designer using a three-dimensional CAD (Computer-Aided Design) program, based on mesh data of an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571 272 4071. 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.
/ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights