Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 limitation(s) is/are: “voxel access engine” and “voxel processing engine” in claims 8-14.
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 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 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 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.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, the independent claims recite (claim 1 language) “adaptively performing a pressing process on the faceted representation of the object, including by: performing the pressing process on the faceted representation of the object, wherein the pressing process is constrained by voxel densities assigned to the voxel data; and responsive to a determination that a pressing reapplication criterion is satisfied” and depending claims recite “wherein the pressing reapplication criterion is satisfied when an actual change to a given facet through the pressing process differs from a requested change to the given facet by the pressing process by more than a difference threshold due a given voxel density constraint”. It is noted that the pressing process and pressing reapplication criterion determination are computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s disclosure discusses the pressing process and pressing reapplication criterion, e.g. paragraphs 12, 16, 29-39, 41, 46, and 50, where paragraph 29 describes the pressing process as any mesh smoothing process applied to a mesh/faceted representation that alters the positioning of mesh elements to smooth the surface or adjust/remove local features, wherein as described and claimed the pressing process is constrained by voxel densities, and paragraphs 33-35 further describe the pressing process being applied by a voxel engine by specifying requested changes to a facet which are constrained by the voxel densities, but does not describe the basis of the requested changes/offsets or how the constraints are applied. Paragraphs 30, 32, describe the claimed pressing reapplication criterion based on a difference between a requested change to a given facet and an actual change to a given facet, although the recited difference does not differentiate the differences caused by particular constraints. Paragraphs 30, 31, 36-38 further describe modifying voxel densities based on the criterion, but do not describe how the pressing process, per se, is performed, or how the pressing process identifies the requested change/offset for comparison to the actual change/offset, or how to determine the difference caused by a specific voxel’s density constraint, as opposed to other voxel’s density constraint(s) or other applied constraint(s).
As explained in MPEP 2161.01 I, paragraphs 6-8, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. … An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.”
With respect to the claimed computer functional limitation of “wherein the pressing reapplication criterion is satisfied when an actual change to a given facet through the pressing process differs from a requested change to the given facet by the pressing process by more than a difference threshold due a given voxel density constraint”, Applicant’s disclosure merely restates the recited function of the claim without providing any algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the function to be performed, i.e. as noted above, the pressing process is disclosed as any mesh smoothing process modifying mesh element positions using the voxel densities as constraints, without further disclosure of how the process, per se, is performed, how the pressing process identifies the requested change/offset for comparison to the actual change/offset, or how to determine the difference caused specifically by a particular voxel’s density constraint rather than other voxels’ density constraint(s) or non-volume density constraint(s). Further, while there are prior art disclosures regarding pressing processes corresponding to Applicant’s description, e.g. “Pressing: Smooth Isosurfaces with Flats from Binary Grids” by A. Chica, et al. (hereinafter Chica), disclosing a pressing process, section 1, paragraph 4, further identifies “Constrained elastic surface nets: generating smooth surfaces from binary segmented data” by S. Gibson, “Reducing aliasing artifacts in iso-surfaces of binary volumes” by R. T. Whitaker (hereinafter Whitaker), “Shrouds: Optimal separating surfaces for enumerated volumes” by G. Nielson, et al., and “Dual Marching Cubes” by G. Nielson, as disclosing prior art processes for solving the same problem as the pressing process, none of the disclosed references describe performing a pressing process by generating “requested changes” that are constrained, i.e. as in Chica, section 4, the pressing algorithm determines displacements accounting for the voxel density constraints, such that the requested change is always the actual change. That is, while one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of prior art pressing processes for mesh smoothing as in the independent claims, the pressing reapplication criterion as recited in depending claims 2, 9, and 16, would not be compatible with prior art pressing processes, and Applicant’s disclosure does not describe how a pressing process is performed to determine requested changes and the difference between the requested change and actual change caused specifically by a particular volume density constraint rather than other voxels’ density constraint(s) or non-volume density constraint(s), indicating that the subject matter of claims 2, 9, and 16 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. Depending claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Depending claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “wherein adjusting the given voxel density constraint in the voxel data comprises lowering the given voxel density constraint when the requested change of the pressing process comprises pushing a bump in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel”. As discussed above with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, this is a computer-implemented functional limitation. Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph 37, repeats this limitation by describing the desired result, but does not otherwise describe how this function is performed, i.e. Applicant’s disclosure does not indicate how a “bump” is identified by the pressing process as requiring “pushing”, or how to determine which voxel density to lower to cause the “pushing”. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interpreting voxel density data is inherently ambiguous, e.g. Whitaker, section 4, explains that many different implicit functions can result in the same voxel density data, “The Asymptotic Decider: Resolving the Ambiguity in Marching Cubes” by Gregory M. Nielson, et al. (hereinafter Nielson1) and “On Marching Cubes” by Gregory M. Nielson (hereinafter Nielson2) both discuss the ambiguous nature of volume density data, and the need to specifically articulate how a mesh processing algorithm handles the ambiguity. As Applicant’s disclosure merely restates the recited function of the claim without providing any algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the function to be performed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know that performing the claimed function requires solving an inherently ambiguous problem, it is apparent that the subject matter of claims 3, 10, and 17 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.
Depending claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “wherein adjusting the given voxel density constraint in the voxel data comprises increasing the given voxel density constraint when the requested change of the pressing process comprises pushing a hole in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel”. As discussed above with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, this is a computer-implemented functional limitation, and as discussed above with respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, the recited function is only repeated in paragraph 37, without description of how to perform the function, which one of ordinary skill in the art would know requires solving an inherently ambiguous problem. Therefore, as Applicant’s disclosure merely restates the recited function of the claim without providing any algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the function to be performed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know that performing the claimed function requires solving an inherently ambiguous problem, it is apparent that the subject matter of claims 4, 11, and 18 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.
Depending claims 7 and 14 recite “performing a tuck-untuck mesh smoothing process on the faceted representation of the object”. As discussed above with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, this is a computer-implemented functional limitation. Applicant’s disclosure mentions “a tuck-untuck” smoothing process in paragraph 40, but does not describe the process further. The term “tuck-untuck” does not appear to be a term of art, or otherwise refer to any mesh smoothing process that is so well known in the prior art that one of ordinary skill in the art would know what a “tuck-untuck” mesh smoothing process refers to. Therefore, as Applicant’s disclosure merely restates the recited function of the claim without providing any algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the function to be performed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what a tuck-untuck mesh smoothing process is, it is apparent that the subject matter of claims 7 and 14 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 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, the independent claims recite (claim 1 language) “adaptively performing a pressing process on the faceted representation of the object, including by: performing the pressing process on the faceted representation of the object, wherein the pressing process is constrained by voxel densities assigned to the voxel data; and responsive to a determination that a pressing reapplication criterion is satisfied” and depending claims recite “wherein the pressing reapplication criterion is satisfied when an actual change to a given facet through the pressing process differs from a requested change to the given facet by the pressing process by more than a difference threshold due a given voxel density constraint”. As noted in the above 112(a) written description rejections, the pressing process and pressing reapplication criterion determination are computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. . MPEP 2161.01 (III), indicates:
“When a claim is not limited to any particular structure for performing a recited function and does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), any claim language reciting the ability to perform a function per se would typically be construed broadly to cover any and all embodiments that perform the recited function. Because such a claim encompasses all devices or structures that perform the recited function, there is a concern regarding whether the applicant's disclosure sufficiently enables the full scope of protection sought by the claim. … Applicants who present broad claim language must ensure the claims are fully enabled. Specifically, the scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement provided by the specification.”, and “The specification need not teach what is well known in the art. However, applicant cannot rely on the knowledge of one skilled in the art to supply information that is required to enable the novel aspect of the claimed invention when the enabling knowledge is in fact not known in the art. … The Federal Circuit has stated that "‘[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.’”
As discussed in the above 112(a) written description rejection, while one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of prior art pressing processes for mesh smoothing as in the independent claims, the pressing reapplication criterion as recited in depending claims 2, 9, and 16, would not be compatible with prior art pressing processes, and Applicant’s disclosure does not describe how a pressing process is performed to determine requested changes and the difference between the requested change and actual change caused specifically by a particular volume density constraint rather than other volume density constraint(s) or non-volume density constraint(s), beyond reciting the desired result of the pressing process and pressing reapplication criterion evaluation. In consideration of the Wands factors, (A) the claimed scope includes any computing system repetitively performing mesh/faceted surface extraction from volume data using the thin feature voxel smoothing, mesh conversion, and pressing/smoothing operations as recited in the independent claim while the pressing reapplication criterion is not satisfied, where the scope of the pressing application criterion in the depending claims is limited to the difference between a “requested change” to a facet and the “actual change” thereof being “more than a difference threshold due to a given voxel density constraint” where the “given voxel density constraint” is the density of a voxel as further defined in claims 2-4, 9-12, and 16-18, i.e. “due a given voxel density constraint” means the measured difference is not absolute, but a difference specifically attributable to a constraint imposed by a particular voxel’s density value separate from constraint(s) imposed by other voxels’ density values and other constraints not based on voxel density values. Further, with respect to factors (C) and (D), the state of the prior art and level of one of ordinary skill, as discussed in the 112(a) rejection above, while there are prior art disclosures regarding pressing processes corresponding to Applicant’s description, e.g. Chica, as discussed above, disclosing a pressing process, section 1, paragraph 4, further identifies “Constrained elastic surface nets: generating smooth surfaces from binary segmented data” by S. Gibson, Whitaker, “Shrouds: Optimal separating surfaces for enumerated volumes” by G. Nielson, et al., and “Dual Marching Cubes” by G. Nielson, as disclosing prior art processes for solving the same problem as the pressing process, none of the disclosed references describe performing a pressing process by generating “requested changes” that are constrained, i.e. as in Chica, section 4, the pressing algorithm determines displacements accounting for the voxel density constraints, such that the requested change is always the actual change. That is, while one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of prior art pressing processes for mesh smoothing as in the independent claims, the pressing reapplication criterion as recited in depending claims 2, 9, and 16, would not be compatible with prior art pressing processes. With respect to factor (F), the amount of direction provided by the inventor, as discussed in the 112(a) written description rejection above, Applicant’s disclosure discusses the pressing process and pressing reapplication criterion, e.g. paragraphs 12, 16, 29-39, 41, 46, and 50, describing the pressing process as any mesh smoothing process modifying mesh element positions using the voxel densities as constraints, without further disclosure of how the process, per se, is performed, how the pressing process identifies the requested change/offset for comparison to the actual change/offset, or how to determine the difference caused specifically by a particular voxel’s density constraint rather than other voxel’s density constraint(s) or non-volume density constraint(s). Furthermore, with respect to factor (G), the existence of working examples, the disclosure provides none, i.e. the description of the pressing process and pressing reapplication criterion is verbal, without any working numerical examples of a mesh having vertices, determining a requested change/offset for a vertex, determining the actual change/offset in consideration of constraints, or determining a difference attributable to a particular voxel density to identify the voxel density to modify. Therefore it is apparent, with respect to factor (H), the quantity of experimentation needed to make/use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, that an undue amount of experimentation would be required because one of ordinary skill in the art would have no algorithm, steps, or procedure for guidance in programming the claimed pressing process which determines the requested changes/offsets that are subject to voxel density constraints, and repeating the modifying/converting/pressing steps based on the pressing reapplication criterion as recited in depending claims 2, 9, and 16, further requiring one of ordinary skill in the art to devise a scheme for evaluating the difference between the requested changes/offsets and actual changes/offsets attributable specifically to separate constraints of separate individual voxel’s density values for comparison to a threshold. Therefore claims 2, 9, and 16, and 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, depending thereon, include subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is additionally noted that because the scope of depending claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 is not enabled, the claims are not addressed with prior art rejections at this time.
Depending claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “wherein adjusting the given voxel density constraint in the voxel data comprises lowering the given voxel density constraint when the requested change of the pressing process comprises pushing a bump in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel”. As noted in the above 112(a) written description rejections, this is a computer-implemented functional limitation. As discussed in the above 112(a) written description rejection, the disclosure does not describe how this function is performed, or otherwise explain the function beyond reciting a desired result.
In consideration of the Wands factors, (A) the claimed scope includes any computing system repetitively performing mesh/faceted surface extraction from volume data using the thin feature voxel smoothing, mesh conversion, and pressing/smoothing operations as recited in the independent claim while the pressing reapplication criterion as recited in depending claims 2, 9, and 16 is not satisfied, wherein a given voxel’s density is lowered when “the requested change of the pressing process comprises pushing a bump in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel”, i.e. a “bump” in the faceted surface is identified within a voxel with respect to a particular corner thereof, and a voxel density is lowered to cause the identified bump to move outside the voxel. Further, with respect to factors (C) and (D), the state of the prior art and level of one of ordinary skill, as discussed in the 112(a) rejection above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interpreting voxel density data is inherently ambiguous, e.g. Whitaker, section 4, explains that many different implicit functions can result in the same voxel density data, Nielson1 and Nielson 2 both discuss the ambiguous nature of volume density data, and the need to specifically articulate how a mesh processing algorithm handles the ambiguity. That is, identifying a “bump”, per se, is a non-trivial subjective function, which is further complicated by the ambiguous nature of voxel density datasets, which is even further complicated in the context of the claimed “pushing a bump in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel” because the effect of modifying a single voxel density constraint on the resulting surface is highly dependent on the pressing process/mesh smoothing algorithm used. With respect to factor (F), the amount of direction provided by the inventor, as discussed in the 112(a) written description rejection above, Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph 37, repeats this limitation by describing the desired result, but does not otherwise describe how this function is performed, i.e. Applicant’s disclosure does not indicate how a “bump” is identified by the pressing process as requiring “pushing”, or how to determine which voxel density to lower to cause the “pushing”. Furthermore, with respect to factor (G), the existence of working examples, the disclosure provides none, i.e. function is simply described as a desired result without any examples of an identified bump within a voxel, or determining which voxel density value to lower to cause the “pushing”. Therefore it is apparent, with respect to factor (H), the quantity of experimentation needed to make/use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, that an undue amount of experimentation would be required because one of ordinary skill in the art would have no algorithm, steps, or procedure for guidance in programming the claimed function of adjusting a given voxel’s density when the pressing process requests a change of pushing a bump in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel. Therefore claims 3, 10, and 17 include subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Depending claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “wherein adjusting the given voxel density constraint in the voxel data comprises increasing the given voxel density constraint when the requested change of the pressing process comprises pushing a hole in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel”. As noted in the above 112(a) written description rejections, this is a computer-implemented functional limitation. As discussed in the above 112(a) written description rejection, the disclosure does not describe how this function is performed, or otherwise explain the function beyond reciting a desired result.
In consideration of the Wands factors, (A) the claimed scope includes any computing system repetitively performing mesh/faceted surface extraction from volume data using the thin feature voxel smoothing, mesh conversion, and pressing/smoothing operations as recited in the independent claim while the pressing reapplication criterion as recited in depending claims 2, 9, and 16 is not satisfied, wherein a given voxel’s density is increased when “the requested change of the pressing process comprises pushing a hole in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel”, i.e. a “hole” in the faceted surface is identified within a voxel with respect to a particular corner thereof, and a voxel density is increased to cause the identified hole to move outside the voxel. Further, with respect to factors (C) and (D), the state of the prior art and level of one of ordinary skill, as discussed in the 112(a) rejection above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interpreting voxel density data is inherently ambiguous, e.g. Whitaker, section 4, explains that many different implicit functions can result in the same voxel density data, Nielson1 and Nielson2 both discuss the ambiguous nature of volume density data, and the need to specifically articulate how a mesh processing algorithm handles the ambiguity. That is, identifying a “hole”, per se, is a non-trivial subjective function, which is further complicated by the ambiguous nature of voxel density datasets, which is even further complicated in the context of the claimed “pushing a hole in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel” because the effect of modifying a single voxel density constraint on the resulting surface is highly dependent on the pressing process/mesh smoothing algorithm used. With respect to factor (F), the amount of direction provided by the inventor, as discussed in the 112(a) written description rejection above, Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph 37, repeats this limitation by describing the desired result, but does not otherwise describe how this function is performed, i.e. Applicant’s disclosure does not indicate how a “hole” is identified by the pressing process as requiring “pushing”, or how to determine which voxel density to increase to cause the “pushing”. Furthermore, with respect to factor (G), the existence of working examples, the disclosure provides none, i.e. function is simply described as a desired result without any examples of an identified hole within a voxel, or determining which voxel density value to increase to cause the “pushing”. Therefore it is apparent, with respect to factor (H), the quantity of experimentation needed to make/use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, that an undue amount of experimentation would be required because one of ordinary skill in the art would have no algorithm, steps, or procedure for guidance in programming the claimed function of adjusting a given voxel’s density when the pressing process requests a change of pushing a hole in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel. Therefore claims 4, 11, and 18 include subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 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.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, the independent claims recite (claim 1 language) “adaptively performing a pressing process on the faceted representation of the object, including by: performing the pressing process on the faceted representation of the object, wherein the pressing process is constrained by voxel densities assigned to the voxel data; and responsive to a determination that a pressing reapplication criterion is satisfied” and depending claims recite “wherein the pressing reapplication criterion is satisfied when an actual change to a given facet through the pressing process differs from a requested change to the given facet by the pressing process by more than a difference threshold due a given voxel density constraint”. As discussed in the above 112(a) rejections, while one of ordinary skill in the art would know there are prior art disclosures regarding pressing processes corresponding to Applicant’s description,
none of the disclosed references describe performing a pressing process by generating “requested changes” that are constrained, i.e. as in Chica, section 4, the pressing algorithm determines displacements accounting for the voxel density constraints, such that the requested change is always the actual change. That is, the scope of the claimed “requested change” is indefinite because prior art pressing processes only produce “actual changes” making the “requested change” component undefined. Further, by extension, the scope of the claimed difference “due to a given voxel density constraint” is indefinite, i.e. as discussed in the 112(a) rejections above, the difference is not merely an absolute difference, but requires determining the difference attributable to a given voxel’s density constraint, which is also subjective, i.e. there is no apparent objective metric for determining how much of the absolute difference is attributable to a given voxel’s density constraint. Therefore, the scope of claims 2, 9, and 16 is indefinite. Furthermore, the claims depending thereon do not clarify these issues, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Depending claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “wherein adjusting the given voxel density constraint in the voxel data comprises lowering the given voxel density constraint when the requested change of the pressing process comprises pushing a bump in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel”. As noted in the above 112(a) rejections, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interpreting voxel density data is inherently ambiguous, and for performing this function, Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph 37, simply repeats this limitation by describing the desired result, but does not otherwise describe how this function is performed, i.e. Applicant’s disclosure does not indicate how a “bump” is identified by the pressing process as requiring “pushing”, or how to determine which voxel density to lower to cause the “pushing”. As a result, the scope of the limitation is subjective to the point of indefiniteness, i.e. the scope of a “bump” is subjective, and although lowering a voxel’s density constraint may move a “bump” in a later iteration of the mesh generation/smoothing steps, the cause cannot be definitively attributed to changing a single voxel density value because of the complexity of the mesh generating/smoothing processes, such that determining whether or not lowering a given voxel’s density value caused a “bump” to be pushed outside of a corner of a voxel is a subjective determination. Therefore, the scope of claims 3, 10, and 17 is indefinite.
Depending claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “wherein adjusting the given voxel density constraint in the voxel data comprises increasing the given voxel density constraint when the requested change of the pressing process comprises pushing a bump in the voxel data outside the corner of the given voxel”. As noted in the above 112(a) rejections, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that interpreting voxel density data is inherently ambiguous, and for performing this function, Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph 37, simply repeats this limitation by describing the desired result, but does not otherwise describe how this function is performed, i.e. Applicant’s disclosure does not indicate how a “hole” is identified by the pressing process as requiring “pushing”, or how to determine which voxel density to increase to cause the “pushing”. As a result, the scope of the limitation is subjective to the point of indefiniteness, i.e. the scope of a “hole” is subjective, and although increasing a voxel’s density constraint may move a “hole” in a later iteration of the mesh generation/smoothing steps, the cause cannot be definitively attributed to changing a single voxel density value because of the complexity of the mesh generating/smoothing processes, such that determining whether or not increasing a given voxel’s density value caused a “hole” to be pushed outside of a corner of a voxel is a subjective determination. Therefore, the scope of claims 4, 11, and 18 is indefinite.
As discussed in the above 112(a) rejections, depending claims 7 and 14 recite “performing a tuck-untuck mesh smoothing process on the faceted representation of the object”. Applicant’s disclosure mentions “a tuck-untuck” smoothing process in paragraph 40, but does not describe the process further. The term “tuck-untuck” does not appear to be a term of art, or otherwise refer to any mesh smoothing process that is so well known in the prior art that one of ordinary skill in the art would know what a “tuck-untuck” mesh smoothing process refers to. That is, the scope of the claimed “tuck-untuck mesh smoothing process” is entirely subjective and depending on semantics, i.e. a first person of ordinary skill in the art might describe a given mesh smoothing process using the names “tuck” and “untuck” for steps thereof, and a second person of ordinary skill in the art might describe said given mesh smoothing process without using the names “tuck” and “untuck” for steps thereof, such that different persons of ordinary skill in the art would reach conflicting conclusions regarding whether a hypothetical system, otherwise reading on the independent claims and performing said given mesh smoothing process described differently by said first and second persons of ordinary skill in the art, read on the scope of the depending claims 7 and 14. Therefore claims 7 and 14 are rejected as indefinite.
It is noted that because the term “tuck-untuck” does not appear to be a term of art, either in view of Applicant’s disclosure or the cited prior art, the examiner is unable to determine the intended scope of the limitation, and therefore unable to suggest an alternative limitation which is supported by the disclosure and definite for purposes of applying prior art, and therefore the claims are not addressed with prior art at this time
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, 8, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A Framework for Level Set Segmentation of Volume Datasets” by Ross Whitaker, David Breen, et al. (hereinafter Breen) in view of “Surface Extraction from Binary Volumes with Higher-Order Smoothness” by Victor Lempitsky (hereinafter Lempitsky) in view of “Pressing: Smooth Isosurfaces with Flats from Binary Grids” by A. Chica, et al. (hereinafter Chica).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “A method comprising: by a computing system: accessing voxel data that represents an object; accessing voxel data that represents an object; processing the voxel data to generate a faceted representation of the object, including by: … smoothing the voxel data … converting the voxel data, after the smoothing, to form the faceted representation of the object;” are taught by Breen (Breen, e.g. abstract, sections 1-6, discloses a system providing a framework for level set segmentation of volume data. Breen, e.g. sections 4.1, 4.1.1, teaches that received input volume data may be initially processed using one or more of the processes described in section 4.1.1, i.e. linearly filtering the data to reduce noise, classifying voxels, topological or logical operations to remove small pieces or holes, and/or morphological filtering to close small gaps or holes, where at least the topological/logical operations and morphological filtering operations correspond to smoothing the voxel data, i.e. the initialization stage includes the claimed accessing voxel data representing an object and smoothing the voxel data. Further, Breen teaches that after performing level set surface deformation to identify the surface within the volume, e.g. section 4.2, the resulting level set can be used to generate a mesh using the conventional marching cubes technique, e.g. section 2, paragraph 2, figure 1b, i.e. after the smoothing, the voxel data is converted to form a faceted representation of the object. It is additionally noted that Breen, e.g. section 5, paragraph 6, indicates the system is implemented using a programmed CPU, i.e. implemented by a computing system which, with respect to independent claim 15, would store the program in a non-transitory memory, i.e. the hard drive.)
The limitations “identifying and labeling thin features of the voxel data; smoothing the voxel data in a manner that preserves the thin features of the voxel data; converting the voxel data, after the smoothing, to form the faceted representation of the object” is not explicitly taught by Breen (As discussed above, Breen, e.g. sections 4.1, 4.1.1, teaches that received input volume data may be initially processed using one or more of the processes described in section 4.1.1, including classifying voxels, analogous to identification and labeling operations. Breen does not explicitly teach identifying/labeling/classifying voxels corresponding to thin features, or performing a voxel smoothing process that preserves the thin feature voxels, although Breen, e.g. section 3, paragraph 9, section 6, paragraphs 1-2, indicates that the system provides a toolbox for trial-and-error solution finding by the user, i.e. the processes are a set of tools which can be combined in different sequences with different parameters to achieve different results until the user is satisfied with the outcome, meaning that one of ordinary skill in the art would generally have been motivated to include additional relevant prior art processes, i.e. “tools” for the “toolbox”, in Breen’s system.) However, this limitation is taught by Lempitsky (Lempitsky, e.g. abstract, sections 1-6, discloses a system for extracting surfaces from binary volumes with higher-order smoothness. Lempitsky, sections 3, 4, describes implementation of the system which solves a quadratic optimization problem to identify the voxels comprising the separating surface, which can then be extracted using a marching cubes algorithm, where Lempitsky further teaches that the system is analogous to Breen’s level set method, e.g. section 6, paragraph 3. Lempitsky, section 3, equations 1, 5, teaches that the embedding function F is the discrete representation of the isosurface in the volume data, with constraint 1/equation 5 used to ensure that all foreground nodes are within F. Further, Lempitsky, section 5, paragraph 4, teaches that performance can be improved for thin objects by identifying thin parts to be preserved using morphological operations and modifying their margin values, where Lempitsky, section 3, subsections Adding a margin, Extracting the surface, uses the margin equation 5 as a constraint on the surface solving operation. That is, Lempitsky teaches identifying, labeling, and smoothing thin features in the voxel data using the morphological filter operations as in section 5, paragraph 4, where the identified voxels have a modified margin value for applying the margin equation as a constraint, i.e. the modified margin value is the labeling.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breen’s level set segmentation framework to include Lempitsky’s thin part identification and margin constraint as additional “tools” in Breen’s metaphorical “toolbox” because Lempitsky teaches the thin part identification and margin constraint improve the resulting surface for thin parts as in figure 4, and because, as noted above, in view of Breen teaching that the system provides a toolbox for trial-and-error solution finding by the user, one of ordinary skill in the art would generally have been motivated to include additional relevant prior art processes, i.e. “tools” for the “toolbox”, in Breen’s system.
The limitation (presented out of order) “responsive to a determination that a … criterion is satisfied; modifying the voxel data to obtain modified voxel data; converting the modified voxel data to form the faceted representation of the object” is taught by Breen (As noted above, Breen, e.g. section 3, paragraph 9, section 6, paragraphs 1-2, indicates that the system provides a toolbox for trial-and-error solution finding by the user. That is, if the user is not satisfied with the resulting segmentation/faceted representation, the user can perform the process again with a modified initialization sequence and parameters and/or modified level set deformation process, repeatedly, until the user is satisfied with the result, corresponding to the claimed modifying/converting operations performed responsive to a criterion, i.e. user dissatisfaction with the previous result.)
The limitations “adaptively performing a pressing process on the faceted representation of the object by: performing the pressing process on the faceted representation of the object wherein the pressing process is constrained by voxel densities assigned to the voxel data; and responsive to a determination that a pressing reapplication criterion is satisfied; modifying the voxel data to obtain modified voxel data; converting the modified voxel data to form the faceted representation of the object; and performing the pressing process on the faceted representation of the object from the modified voxel data” are partially taught by Breen (As noted above, Breen, e.g. section 3, paragraph 9, section 6, paragraphs 1-2, indicates that the system provides a toolbox for trial-and-error solution finding by the user, meaning that the user can perform the process again with a modified initialization sequence and parameters and/or modified level set deformation process, repeatedly, until the user is satisfied with the result. Breen, section 2, paragraph 2, indicates that the mesh/faceted representation is generated using marching cubes, but the marching cubes algorithm is not essential, i.e. Breen is teaching that other mesh generation algorithms could be used instead, however Breen does not disclose using a mesh generation algorithm which performs a pressing process on the mesh/faceted representation after converting the voxel data to a mesh/faceted representation. It is further noted that if Breen’s system were modified to include a mesh generation algorithm which performs a pressing process on the mesh/faceted representation after converting the voxel data to a mesh/faceted representation, then Breen’s modified system would correspond to the claimed adaptively performed pressing process, repeatedly, subject to a reapplication criterion, performing the steps of modifying the voxel data in the initialization stage, followed by performing level set deformation, followed by performing a mesh generation algorithm which performs a pressing process on the mesh/faceted representation after converting the voxel data to a mesh/faceted representation.) However, this limitation is taught by Chica (Chica, e.g. abstract, sections 1-7, describes a pressing algorithm for generating smooth isosurfaces from binary volume data, which is an improvement derived from the marching cubes algorithm, e.g. Chica, section 2, paragraph 3. Chica, section 1, describes the algorithm operation, including defining a triangulated isosurface S comprising vertices constrained to the “sticks” of the lattice connecting adjacent nodes/voxels, followed by performing the pressing process to slide/displace some of the vertices along their sticks to increase the smoothness of the triangulated isosurface into the pressed isosurface S’, where the vertices are displaced based on the isocurves determined from the voxel densities, e.g. section 4. Finally, Chica, e.g. section 1, indicates advantages of the pressing algorithm results, including recovering flat and curved regions, and sharp edges automatically, the mesh has a bounded reconstruction error, and is automatically segmented into flat and curved regions facilitating other applications.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breen’s level set segmentation framework, including Lempitsky’s thin part identification and margin constraint as additional “tools” in Breen’s metaphorical “toolbox”, to include Chica’s pressing algorithm as an alternative/additional “tool” in Breen’s metaphorical “toolbox”, because Breen teaches that other mesh generation algorithms could be used instead of marching cubes to extract the isosurface mesh, and Chica’s pressing algorithm, being intended for the same purpose of generating a mesh/faceted representation of an isosurface from volume data and having improved qualities as discussed in Chica, section 1, would be selected by the user for generating an isosurface mesh/faceted representation that has said improved qualities relative to the conventional marching cubes algorithm. In Breen’s modified system, the user would be able to choose between using conventional marching cubes or Chica’s pressing algorithm to extract the isosurface mesh/faceted representation, and, as noted above, if Breen’s system were modified to include a mesh generation algorithm which performs a pressing process on the mesh/faceted representation after converting the voxel data to a mesh/faceted representation, then Breen’s modified system would correspond to the claimed adaptively performed pressing process, repeatedly, subject to a reapplication criterion, performing the steps of modifying the voxel data in the initialization stage, followed by performing level set deformation, followed by performing a mesh generation algorithm which performs a pressing process on the mesh/faceted representation after converting the voxel data to a mesh/faceted representation. It is noted that the claimed “pressing reapplication criterion” is interpreted broadly to include the user choosing to repeat, or not, the process with modified initialization, level set, and/or mesh generation processes/parameters, which could include repeatedly extracting a mesh from modified voxel data using Chica’s pressing algorithm, i.e. the user’s choice corresponds to a criterion to reapply the pressing algorithm, or not.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein processing the voxel data to generate the faceted representation of the object further comprises performing a voxel averaging process on the voxel data after the smoothing of the voxel data” is taught by Breen (Breen, e.g. sections 3, 4.2, describes performing the level set deformation using one or more of the terms 6-9, either in succession or simultaneously, after the initialization stage comprising the smoothing of the voxel data, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph 24, indicates that voxel averaging may be applied using techniques such as mean curvature flow or gradient vector flow, and Breen, section 4.2, equation 6, indicates that mean curvature defined as a vector can be used as the smoothing term in the level set deformation, i.e. Breen’s level set deformation, performed after the smoothing of the voxel data in the initialization stage, corresponds to the claimed voxel averaging process.)
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A Framework for Level Set Segmentation of Volume Datasets” by Ross Whitaker, David Breen, et al. (hereinafter Breen) in view of “Surface Extraction from Binary Volumes with Higher-Order Smoothness” by Victor Lempitsky (hereinafter Lempitsky) in view of “Pressing: Smooth Isosurfaces with Flats from Binary Grids” by A. Chica, et al. (hereinafter Chica) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of “Delaunay Mesh Construction” by Ramsay Dyer, et al. (hereinafter Dyer).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “further comprising performing a mesh cleaning process to remove mesh elements in the faceted representation identified as skinny elements according to the mesh cleaning process” is not explicitly taught by Breen in view of Lempitsky and Chica (As noted in the claim 1 rejection, Breen, section 2, paragraph 2, indicates that the mesh/faceted representation is generated using marching cubes, but the marching cubes algorithm is not essential, i.e. Breen is teaching that other mesh generation algorithms could be used instead, but Breen does not address removing skinny elements, per se. Further, Chica does not discuss whether the resulting pressed isosurface mesh/faceted representation contains or excludes skinny elements. Finally, Lempitsky, section 6, paragraph 2, notes that marching cubes has no control on the quality of produced triangles, such that the result may comprise a large number of triangles with a poor aspect ratio, i.e. skinny elements, and that using another extraction algorithm may remedy the problem.) However, this limitation is taught by Dyer (Dyer, e.g. abstract, sections 1, 3-7, discloses algorithms for converting triangle meshes to Delaunay meshes by performing edge flipping for edges when the sum of the two face angles opposite to the edge is greater than pi, indicating that at least one of the triangles has a large aspect ratio, i.e. Dyer’s Delaunay mesh algorithm corresponds to the claimed mesh cleaning process to remove mesh elements identified as skinny. It is additionally noted that while Dyer teaches different versions of the algorithm, the edge flipping version of section 3.1 is geometry preserving, e.g. Dyer, section 1, paragraph 5, indicating the result is geometrically identical to the input, corresponding to Lempitsky’s suggestion to use a remeshing operation to remove triangles having a poor aspect ratio.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breen’s level set segmentation framework, including Lempitsky’s thin part identification and margin constraint and Chica’s pressing algorithm as additional “tools” in Breen’s metaphorical “toolbox”, to include Dyer’s Delaunay mesh algorithm as an additional “tool” in Breen’s metaphorical “toolbox”, because Breen teaches that other mesh generation algorithms could be used instead of marching cubes to extract the isosurface mesh, Lempitsky suggests using a remeshing algorithm to remove triangles having a poor aspect ratio from the generated isosurface mesh/faceted representation, and Dyer’s Delaunay mesh algorithm is a remeshing algorithm which removes triangles having a poor aspect ratio from an input mesh representation which is also guaranteed to preserve the mesh geometry. In Breen’s modified system, when the user controls the system to perform Dyer’s Delaunay mesh algorithm to remesh the faceted representation generated by Chica’s pressing algorithm, Breen’s system performs the claimed mesh cleaning process on the faceted representation of the object to remove mesh elements identified as skinny.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT BADER whose telephone number is (571)270-3335. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7 m-f.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at 571-272-7773. 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.
/ROBERT BADER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights