DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites steps of “obtaining a base mesh representing the 3D modeled object; selecting one or more connected edges of the base mesh, thereby obtaining a path of connected edges comprising two endpoints”, “subdividing the base mesh based on the selected edges by: obtaining a bevel pattern area over the selected path by: identifying each face of the base mesh that shares an edge of the path, subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching a number N of cuts where N is a non-negative number; and obtaining, for at least one of the two endpoints of the path, a transition area by grouping all faces sharing the at least one of the two endpoints of the path, except those of the computed bevel pattern area”, “re-meshing the transition area by: obtaining, for each cut comprising a pair of vertices, a transition vertex located in the transition area, and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the cut with the obtained transition vertex”. As is evident from the background, the claimed limitations falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited steps of obtaining, selecting, subdividing, identifying, re-meshing, and computing can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited determination, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh”. The additional limitation represents mere data outputting (outputting the determined result) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim lacks any additional element that amounts more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitation of “outputting the subdivided base mesh” represent mere data outputting is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh” do not amount to significantly more. The claim lacks any additional element that amounts more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 2 recites step of “re-meshing of the transition area comprises, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh comprises subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an even number 2N of cuts, and when a topology valence of the at least one of the two endpoints of the path is even, performing: for the N=0 cut, designating one of the vertices connected to the at least one of the two endpoints of the path as a convergence vertex; for each subsequent cut, obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the subsequent cut with the obtained transition vertex; and keeping unmodified a topology of the other faces of the bevel pattern area and the transition area, thereby obtaining a re-meshed transition area comprising 2N quadrangular faces and a triangular face”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 3 recites step of “the re-meshing of the transition area includes, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh includes subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an odd number 2N+1 of cuts, and when a topology valence of the at least one of the two endpoints of the path is even, performing: for the N=0 cut, designating one of the vertices connected to the at least one of the two endpoints of the path as a convergence vertex; for each subsequent cut, obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the subsequent cut with the obtained transition vertex; and keeping unmodified a topology of the other faces of the bevel pattern area and the transition area, thereby obtaining a re-meshed transition area comprising 2N quadrangular faces and a triangular face”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 4 recites step of “re-meshing of the transition area includes, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh includes subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an even number 2N of cuts, and when a topology valence of the at least one of the two endpoints of the path is odd, performing: for the N=0 cut: identifying a first vertex and a third vertex of the transition area that are connected to the at least one of the two endpoints of the path and a second vertex that is connected to the first and third vertices, the second vertex being a convergence vertex, and obtaining a first transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting the generated first transition vertex to the second vertex; and performing: for each subsequent cut, obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the subsequent cut with the obtained transition vertex; and keeping unmodified a topology of the other faces of the bevel pattern area and the transition area, thereby obtaining a re-meshed transition area comprising at least 2N quadrangular faces and a triangular face”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 5 recites step of “re-meshing of the transition area includes, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh comprises subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an odd number 2N+1 of cuts, and when a topology valence of the at least one of the two endpoints of the path is odd, performing: for the N=0 cut: identifying a first vertex and a third vertex of the transition area that are connected to the at least one of the two endpoints of the path and a second vertex that is connected to the first and third vertices, the second vertex being a convergence vertex, and obtaining a first transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting the generated first transition vertex to the second vertex; for each subsequent cut, obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the subsequent cut with the obtained transition vertex; and keeping unmodified a topology of the other faces of the bevel pattern area and the transition area, thereby obtaining a re-meshed transition area comprising at least 2N quadrangular faces and a triangular face”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 6 recites step of “computing a fictive line that extends between: a fictive vertex located on an edge shared by both the bevel pattern area and the transition area, and a convergence vertex that is located on one of the edges of the transition area; placing the transition(s) vertex(ices) located on the transition area on the fictive line”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 7 recites step of “the fictive vertex is constructed as: an average distance between a pair of vertices of a cut when an even number 2N of cuts is reached; or a location of a middle cut among the cuts when an odd number 2N+1 of cuts is reached”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 8 recites step of “placing the at least one transition of at least one vertex located on the transition on the fictive line comprises evenly placing the at least one transition of the at least one vertex on the fictive line”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 9 recites step of “constructing the fictive vertex as: an average distance between the pair of vertices of the cut, or a location of an odd cut with no pair of vertices; computing a fictive line that extends between the fictive vertex of the cut and the convergence vertex; and placing the transition vertex on the computed fictive line”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 10 recites step of “placing, for each cut, the transition vertex on the computed fictive line comprises placing, for each pair (k, N−k−1) of vertices of a cut, the transition vertex (T.sub.k,N-k-1) on the fictive line at a ratio k/(INT(N/2)+1), where INT is an integer part”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 11 recites step of “re-meshing the transition area further comprises computing a polyline that connects the one or more obtained transition vertices”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim lacks any additional elements or limitations which may serve to integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a computer readable medium, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 13 recites steps of “obtaining a base mesh representing the 3D modeled object; selecting one or more connected edges of the base mesh, thereby obtaining a path of connected edges comprising two endpoints”, “subdividing the base mesh based on the selected edges by: obtaining a bevel pattern area over the selected path by: identifying each face of the base mesh that shares an edge of the path, subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching a number N of cuts where N is a non-negative number; and obtaining, for at least one of the two endpoints of the path, a transition area by grouping all faces sharing the at least one of the two endpoints of the path, except those of the computed bevel pattern area”, “re-meshing the transition area by: obtaining, for each cut comprising a pair of vertices, a transition vertex located in the transition area, and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the cut with the obtained transition vertex”. As is evident from the background, the claimed limitations falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited steps of obtaining, selecting, subdividing, identifying, re-meshing, and computing can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited determination, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh”. The additional limitation represents mere data outputting (outputting the determined result) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim lacks any additional element that amounts more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitation of “outputting the subdivided base mesh” represent mere data outputting is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh” do not amount to significantly more. The claim lacks any additional element that amounts more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 14 recites step of “the re-meshing of the transition area includes, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh includes subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an odd number 2N+1 of cuts, and when a topology valence of the at least one of the two endpoints of the path is even, performing: for the N=0 cut, designating one of the vertices connected to the at least one of the two endpoints of the path as a convergence vertex; for each subsequent cut, obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the subsequent cut with the obtained transition vertex; and keeping unmodified a topology of the other faces of the bevel pattern area and the transition area, thereby obtaining a re-meshed transition area comprising 2N quadrangular faces and a triangular face”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 15 recites step of “re-meshing of the transition area includes, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh includes subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an even number 2N of cuts, and when a topology valence of the at least one of the two endpoints of the path is odd, performing: for the N=0 cut: identifying a first vertex and a third vertex of the transition area that are connected to the at least one of the two endpoints of the path and a second vertex that is connected to the first and third vertices, the second vertex being a convergence vertex, and obtaining a first transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting the generated first transition vertex to the second vertex; and performing: for each subsequent cut, obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the subsequent cut with the obtained transition vertex; and keeping unmodified a topology of the other faces of the bevel pattern area and the transition area, thereby obtaining a re-meshed transition area comprising at least 2N quadrangular faces and a triangular face”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 16 recites step of “re-meshing of the transition area includes, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh comprises subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an odd number 2N+1 of cuts, and when a topology valence of the at least one of the two endpoints of the path is odd, performing: for the N=0 cut: identifying a first vertex and a third vertex of the transition area that are connected to the at least one of the two endpoints of the path and a second vertex that is connected to the first and third vertices, the second vertex being a convergence vertex, and obtaining a first transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting the generated first transition vertex to the second vertex; for each subsequent cut, obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the subsequent cut with the obtained transition vertex; and keeping unmodified a topology of the other faces of the bevel pattern area and the transition area, thereby obtaining a re-meshed transition area comprising at least 2N quadrangular faces and a triangular face”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 17 recites step of “computing a fictive line that extends between: a fictive vertex located on an edge shared by both the bevel pattern area and the transition area, and a convergence vertex that is located on one of the edges of the transition area; placing the transition(s) vertex(ices) located on the transition area on the fictive line”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 18 recites step of “the fictive vertex is constructed as: an average distance between a pair of vertices of a cut when an even number 2N of cuts is reached; or a location of a middle cut among the cuts when an odd number 2N+1 of cuts is reached”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 19 recites step of “placing the at least one transition of at least one vertex located on the transition on the fictive line comprises evenly placing the at least one transition of the at least one vertex on the fictive line”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 20 recites steps of “obtaining a base mesh representing the 3D modeled object; selecting one or more connected edges of the base mesh, thereby obtaining a path of connected edges comprising two endpoints”, “subdividing the base mesh based on the selected edges by: obtaining a bevel pattern area over the selected path by: identifying each face of the base mesh that shares an edge of the path, subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching a number N of cuts where N is a non-negative number; and obtaining, for at least one of the two endpoints of the path, a transition area by grouping all faces sharing the at least one of the two endpoints of the path, except those of the computed bevel pattern area”, “re-meshing the transition area by: obtaining, for each cut comprising a pair of vertices, a transition vertex located in the transition area, and computing an edge connecting each vertex of the pair of vertices of the cut with the obtained transition vertex”. As is evident from the background, the claimed limitations falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited steps of obtaining, selecting, subdividing, identifying, re-meshing, and computing can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited determination, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh”. The additional limitation represents mere data outputting (outputting the determined result) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements “processor” and “memory” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional limitation of “outputting the subdivided base mesh” represent mere data outputting is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation “outputting the subdivided base mesh” do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “processor” and “memory” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 recites the limitation “the selected path”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching a number N of cuts where N is a non-negative number”, it is unclear how the identified faces can be subdivided and reach a number zero of cut, which is encompassed by the present wording of this feature, since a subdivision creates an inner edge of the bevel and therefore a cut. Moreover, subsequent steps are performed for each cut, which does not make any technical sense if there is no cut to continue the further cut. Furthermore, when the number N is zero, it appears that no subdivision of the base mesh is performed and, therefore, the output base mesh, not being subdivided, is the same as the initial base mesh and the method does not perform any step having any effect. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the computed bevel pattern area”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “re-meshing the transition area by: obtaining, for each cut comprising a pair of vertices, a transition vertex located in the transition area” , the method thereby modifies the mesh topology of the transition area, it is unclear what is the claimed “transition vertex” and how to obtain it in the transition area. Therefore, appropriated explanations and corrections are required.
Claim 2 recites “the re-meshing of the transition area comprises, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh comprises subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an even number 2N of cuts”. However, the step of “subdividing each identified face of the base mesh” seems belong to step of “subdividing the base mesh based on the selected edges” from claim 1 instead of step of “the re-meshing of the transition area”.
Claims 3 and 14 recites “the re-meshing of the transition area comprises, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh comprises subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an odd number 2N+1 of cuts”. However, the step of “subdividing each identified face of the base mesh” seems belong to step of “subdividing the base mesh based on the selected edges” from claim 1 instead of step of “the re-meshing of the transition area”.
Claims 4 and 15 recites “the re-meshing of the transition area comprises, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh comprises subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an even number 2N of cuts”. However, the step of “subdividing each identified face of the base mesh” seems belong to step of “subdividing the base mesh based on the selected edges” from claim 1 instead of step of “the re-meshing of the transition area”.
Claims 5 and 16 recites “the re-meshing of the transition area comprises, when the subdividing each identified face of the base mesh comprises subdividing each identified face of the base mesh for reaching an odd number 2N+1 of cuts”. However, the step of “subdividing each identified face of the base mesh” seems belong to step of “subdividing the base mesh based on the selected edges” from claim 1 instead of step of “the re-meshing of the transition area”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area”, however, claim 1 already recites a limitation “obtaining a transition vertex located in the transition area”. It is unclear whether those “a transition vertex” recited from claims 1 and 6 referring to same limitation or a different one. The claim also refers to "the transition(s) vertex(ices)". Only a transition vertex and not "transition vertices" or "transitions vertex" or "transitions vertices" have been previously defined from claim 1. Since, according to the claims on which it depends, a transmission vertex is obtained for each cut, it appears that claim 6, specifying how this transmission vertex is obtained, is performed for each cut and, therefore, a single transmission vertex should be placed as the last step defined in this claim. In other words, the wording in parentheses should be removed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 5712723667. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115