DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 2-29 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 1/31/2024.
Claims 2, 3, 5,7,10-11,13-14,16-17,21-22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20160224693 A1 by MAISONNEUVE; Richard.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 15, 23 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US 20160224693 A1 by MAISONNEUVE; Richard., in view of US 9196090 B2 by Maisonneuve; Richard (Maisonneuve-2 hereafter).
Claim(s) 8, 12, 18-19 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US 20160224693 A1 by MAISONNEUVE; Richard., in view of US 20020163515 A1 by Sowizral, Henry A. et al.
Claim(s) 9, 20, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB No. US 20160224693 A1 by MAISONNEUVE; Richard., in view of US 20040090437 A1 by Uesaki, Akira et al.
This action is made Non-Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5,7,10-11,13-14,16-17,21-22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20160224693 A1 by MAISONNEUVE; Richard.
Regarding Claims 2 & 21
Maisonneuve teaches (Claim 2) A method (Maisonneuve: Abstract; Fig.2)
(Claim 21) A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions operable to cause data processing apparatus to perform operations (Maisonneuve: [0048] & Abstract; Fig.2)
comprising:
providing, by a computer graphics application (Maisonneuve: [0004]-[0007] Fig.2 showing mesh to NURBS conversion hybrid modeling) , a hybrid surface model comprising a subdivision surface, a set of NURBS surfaces representing a limit surface of the subdivision surface (Maisonneuve: [0050]-[0051]) , and topological information for the limit surface (Maisonneuve: [0005]-[0007]; [0052]) , wherein the set of NURBS surfaces are directly editable using NURBS modeling tools in the computer graphics application (Maisonneuve: [0006]) , and a modified NURBS surface in the set of NURBS surfaces has an associated history procedure specifying a previous direct edit of the modified NURBS surface using at least one of the NURBS modeling tools (Maisonneuve: The annotated citation of ¶ [0058]
PNG
media_image1.png
448
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
shows NURBS can be represented as Gréville points and they are modified with each iteration of the modification of the control points (of the subdivision surface). The annotated citation of ¶ [0069]-[0072] shows that conversion algorithm (e.g. Fig. 6 S30, S34) modifies the NURBS. In both citation modification of NURBS (Gréville points) would require that information be stored, so that it is available for modification, indicating the previous state (history) be available for modification) ; receiving, by the computer graphics application, input to modify the subdivision surface (Maisonneuve: See [0058] above, 2nd underline; Fig.2
PNG
media_image2.png
502
1223
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; Also see Fig.6) ;
obtaining, by the computer graphics application, an updated limit surface for the subdivision surface responsive to the input (Maisonneuve: [0053] "... [0053] In the case of the method, the conversion algorithm predetermined to the system is a mesh-to-NURBS-surface conversion algorithm, meaning that the base mesh is transformed in a set of NURBS elementary surfaces/patches that approximate the subdivision surface associated to the base mesh (the base mesh being a quad mesh and the subdivision scheme the Catmull-Clark subdivision scheme, in an example extensively illustrated later)....") ;
finding, by the computer graphics application, the modified NURBS surface, which has a replacement NURBS surface for the updated limit surface, using the topological information (Maisonneuve: [0072] "... [0072] It is noted that the predetermined conversion algorithm may comprise refinements (e.g. ulterior processing) that locally modify or erase the NURBS structure (possibly according to a local specificity of the base mesh or to a specification added to the base mesh)...."; Fig.2 Steps S20-S30) ;
updating, by the computer graphics application, the modified NURBS surface with the replacement NURBS surface (Maisonneuve: Fig.2 S30; [0079]-[0083]) ; and
applying, by the computer graphics application, the previous direct edit of the modified NURBS surface to the replacement NURBS surface using the associated history procedure (Maisonneuve: [0075] "... The defining S20 thus corresponds to the setting of a feature, in a feature-based CAD system, and/or the setting of a historical design operation, i.e. a node in a history tree of a history-based CAD system, such systems being known per se. ..."; [0096]-[0099]"... [0096] The whole process of the example is fully automatic and can be stored as an “engraving” feature in the data structure of a history based CAD system. The inputs are the subdivision surface and the image, and the output is the engraved NURBS surface. After the engraving operation is performed, the subdivision surface can be edited or the image definition can be changed as well. The modified version of the resulting surface is obtained by replaying the engraving feature. This allows easy and fast design changes. [0097] Despite the resulting surface is a NURBS surface, from the user point of view the functionality is that of a subdivision surface. This is because the edition is performed on the input subdivision surface. The NURBS aspect of the resulting surface is a way to handle the result that does not restrict edition capabilities....").
Regarding Claims 3, 14 & 22
Maisonneuve teaches The method of claim 2, comprising: receiving input specifying application of one or more of the NURBS modeling tools to the subdivision surface (Maisonneuve: [0030] "... The method comprises a step of defining S10, by a user, a base mesh associated to a subdivision surface and to a corresponding predetermined mesh-to-NURBS-surface conversion algorithm...."); and
using the topological information for the limit surface to determine which NURBS surfaces in the set of NURBS surfaces to modify using the one or more of the NURBS modeling tools (Maisonneuve:[0030]-[0031] "[0030]... The method comprises a step of defining S10, by a user, a base mesh associated to a subdivision surface and to a corresponding predetermined mesh-to-NURBS-surface conversion algorithm. The subdivision surface represents the 3D modeled object. The method also comprises defining S20, by the user, a 2D image and a location for engraving the 2D image on the subdivision surface. And the method then comprises determining S30 a NURBS surface that corresponds (i.e. by “corresponds”, it is meant that the specific way to obtain the NURBS surface is an implementation detail, as long as the result would be obtained—at least approximately, e.g. in the meaning of “approximation” provided later—by the following steps, even if those specific steps are not implemented) to applying a deformation map on the result of performing the mesh-to-NURBS-surface conversion algorithm to the base mesh...." [0053] "... But the predetermined mesh-to-NURBS-surface conversion algorithm may be any other known operator producing untrimmed patches with C.sup.2 continuity between each other except in the neighborhood of extraordinary vertices where they are at least C.sup.0 (Catmull-Clark subdivision convergence property, see Recursively generated B-spline surfaces on arbitrary topological meshes, E. Catmull, J. Clark, Computer-Aided Design Volume 10, Issue 6, November 1978, Pages 350-355)...."; [0077]).
Regarding Claims 5, 13 & 24
Maisonneuve teaches The method of claim 2, wherein a second modified NURBS surface in the set of NURBS surfaces has a second associated history procedure specifying a second previous direct edit of the second modified NURBS surface using at least one of the NURBS modeling tools, the updated limit surface deletes the second modified NURBS surface, and the method comprises: retaining the second associated history procedure specifying the second previous direct edit for use when further modification of the subdivision surface produces another NURBS surface to which the second associated history procedure is applicable (Maisonneuve: [0075] "... The defining S20 thus corresponds to the setting of a feature, in a feature-based CAD system, and/or the setting of a historical design operation, i.e. a node in a history tree of a history-based CAD system, such systems being known per se. ..."; [0096]-[0099]"... [0096] The whole process of the example is fully automatic and can be stored as an “engraving” feature in the data structure of a history based CAD system….” – showing history tracking; History tracking for one or many (second) is simply duplication of parts as in In re Harza; Further Fig.7-9 shown plurality of NURBS surface and at least two of them specifically pointed out
PNG
media_image3.png
976
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claims 7 & 26
Maisonneuve teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the associated history procedure is tracked using a procedural history system of the computer graphics application, and a NURBS modeler of the computer graphics application has no information indicating that the set of NURBS surfaces are produced from the subdivision surface (Maisonneuve: See Fig.7 and 11 where the edits can be seen as direct edits in NURBS surfaces S0 to S1 (i.e. are history tracked), where although the edits are done in subdivision surface base mesh, history tracking can be done in NURBS engraved surfaces (See S4-S5 NURBS based tracking)
PNG
media_image4.png
366
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) .
Regarding Claim 10
Maisonneuve teaches A system (Maisonneuve: Fig.4 & [0047]) comprising: a non-transitory storage medium having instructions of a computer graphics application stored thereon (Maisonneuve: Fig.4 element 1020 & [0047]) , wherein the computer graphics application uses a data model that supports hybrid subdivision surface and NURBS surface modelling (Maisonneuve: Fig.7 & 11 showing hybrid model processing) ; and one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the computer graphics application to generate in a memory of the one or more data processing apparatus an instantiation of a subdivision surface model node for a subdivision surface (Maisonneuve: Fig. 11 curved base mesh 0 as subdivision surface model & base mesh computations) , wherein a limit surface of the subdivision surface (Maisonneuve: [0050]-[0051]) is represented by a set of NURBS, and the subdivision surface model node contains the subdivision surface, the set of NURBS, and topological information for the limit surface (Maisonneuve: [0005]-[0007]; [0052]), use NURBS surfaces tools directly on one or more NURBS surfaces in the set of NURBS surfaces representing the limit surface(Maisonneuve: Fig. 6, 7 & 11 showing modification of NURBS surface [0005]-[0007]; [0052]), edit a control mesh of the subdivision surface to modify the subdivision surface (Maisonneuve: Fig.7 “Control point deviation”), and find and handle modified, created and deleted NURBS surfaces using the topological information (Maisonneuve: Fig.7 Engraved NURBS Surface S1), including re-execution of a NURBS procedure previously applied to the one or more NURBS surfaces, in response to modification of the subdivision surface thru an edit of the control mesh (Maisonneuve: Fig.6. 7 and 11 execution leading to modified NURBS surface S1 using the modification performed using control surface (points) & subdivision (base mesh computations); [0005]-[0007]; [0052]).
Regarding Claim 11
Maisonneuve teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the NURBS procedure previously applied to the one or more NURBS surfaces comprises a previous direct edit to the one or more NURBS surfaces, and the one or more data processing apparatus (Maisonneuve : Fig.4) are configured to run the instructions of the computer graphics application to re-apply the previous direct edit to one or more replacement NURBS surfaces obtained in response to the modification of the subdivision surface thru the edit of the control mesh (Maisonneuve: [0075] "... The defining S20 thus corresponds to the setting of a feature, in a feature-based CAD system, and/or the setting of a historical design operation, i.e. a node in a history tree of a history-based CAD system, such systems being known per se. ..."; [0096]-[0099]"... [0096] The whole process of the example is fully automatic and can be stored as an “engraving” feature in the data structure of a history based CAD system….” – showing history tracking; History tracking for one or many (second) is simply duplication of parts as in In re Harza; Further Fig.7-9 shown plurality of NURBS surface and at least two of them specifically pointed out
PNG
media_image3.png
976
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
.
Regarding Claim 16
Maisonneuve teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the NURBS surfaces tools comprise modeling, evaluation, and visualization tools (Maisonneuve teaches: [0032] "... [0032] The method thus offers to the user an easy, interactive and visual way to add a local detail on a 3D modeled object, by defining a specification at S20 in the form of a 2D image provided with a location on the subdivision surface. This edition simulates a real engraving, and it respects the industrial requirements of the user, which include keeping the context of a design based on the surface subdivision technology (with a base mesh), where, in addition, continuity of the final surface matters....") .
Regarding Claim 17
Maisonneuve teaches wherein the NURBS surfaces tools comprise NURBS modeling tools, and code that implements the NURBS modeling tools has no information indicating that the set of NURBS surfaces are part of the subdivision surface (Maisonneuve teaches: Fig.7 shows the S1 is computed from control points and not subdivision or base mesh) .
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 15, 23 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US 20160224693 A1 by MAISONNEUVE; Richard., in view of US 9196090 B2 by Maisonneuve; Richard (Maisonneuve-2 hereafter).
Regarding Claims 41, 15 & 23
Teachings of Maisonneuve are shown in the parent claim 3.
Maisonneuve teaches NURBS modeling tool as mapped but does not teach explicitly this limitation.
Maisonneuve-2 teaches The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more of the NURBS modeling tools comprise a trim tool, and the method comprises: trimming multiple NURBS surfaces in the set of NURBS surfaces in one operation responsive to the input specifying application of the trim tool to the subdivision surface (Maisonneuve-2: Fig.2 flow Step S10-S30 showing application to subdivision surface, and then trimming multiple NURBS in step S30 and S40; Col.11 Lines 59-Col.12 Lines 45; Also see known prior art as shown in Fig.407 and inventive aspect as shown in Fig.12-13)
PNG
media_image5.png
462
901
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Maisonneuve-2 to Maisonneuve as they are works of same inventor, both of them in the same field of endeavor as the instant claim limitations.
Regarding Claims 6 & 25
Maisonneuve-2 teachesThe method of claim 2, wherein the previous direct edit of the modified NURBS surface comprises a moved NURBS control point of the modified NURBS surface, and the method comprises: identifying a neighboring NURBS surface using the topological information (Maisonneuve-2: Col.9 Lines 62-Col.10 Lines 8 "... First, the method does not modify the subdivision surface itself but its (NURBS) approximation [direct edit] . This way it is not constrained by the subdivision rules and by barycentric effects that usually lead to geometric sliding. Second, no other patches than those directly involved in the transition zone are modified: the change is local....") ; and modifying the neighboring NURBS surface responsive to the moved NURBS control point of the modified NURBS surface (Maisonneuve-2: Col.9 Lines 62-Col.10 Lines 8).
Claim(s) 8, 12, 18-19 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US 20160224693 A1 by MAISONNEUVE; Richard., in view of US 20020163515 A1 by Sowizral, Henry A. et al.
Regarding Claims 8, 19 & 27
Teachings of Maisonneuve are shown in the parent claim 2.
Maisonneuve teaches NURBS modeling tool as mapped but does not teach explicitly this limitation.
Sowizral teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the hybrid surface model is implemented using a NURBS group node with a subdivision surface attribute containing a control mesh of the subdivision surface and the topological information (Sowizral: Fig.4 showing group nodes of a scene graph , [0102] "... [0102] A scene graph is a type of data structure. For example, VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language) and Java 3D.TM. both support scene graphs as data structures. Scene graphs are typically a hierarchical organization of graphics and other data that can be used to create a virtual three-dimensional (3D) world. ..."; [0031] "... [0031] In one embodiment, the method for performing visibility culling includes receiving a scene graph having graphics data that describes a plurality of graphics objects (each object may comprise a plurality of graphics primitives such as polygons, subdivision surfaces, or NURBS)...."; [0104] "... [0104] Scene graphs are useful because they define relationships between objects that define a particular three-dimensional scene or world. For example, a scene graph may represent an entire building and all the furnishings and people that occupy the building. As the scene graph is traversed from the top node, the next level of group nodes may represent particular rooms within the building. Traversing the scene graph one more level may yield group nodes that each represent one person or furniture object (e.g., a chair) in a particular room...." ; [0143]), the subdivision surface attribute stores the subdivision surface in an industry standard data format for subdivision surface models, the NURBS group node stores the set of NURBS surfaces in an industry standard data format for NURBS surface models (Sowizral: [0129] "... [0129] As shown in the figure, leaf node 184 includes a pointer to geometry data 186. Geometry data 186 may include geometric primitives such as polygons, NURBs, sub-division surfaces. In some embodiments, geometry data 186 may be stored in a compressed form until it is needed for rendering...") , and the method comprises: directly exporting the subdivision surface to another application that does not support NURBS surfaces, or directly exporting the set of NURBS surfaces to another application that does not support subdivision surfaces (Sowizral: [0102]-[0103][0114] showing scene graphs storing all the data keeping (subdivision and NURB) them in leaves and using them when needed in another application like VRML).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sowizral to Maisonneuve to present a bigger picture where the objects are classified in group nodes to identify physical objects and are modified in alignment (Sowizral: Fig.4 & 9 flow). Additional motivation to combine would have been that Sowizral and Maisonneuve are analogous art to the instant claim in the field of relative change modification (Maisonneuve: Fig.7 & 11; Sowizral: Fig.4 & 9).
Regarding Claim 12
Teachings of Maisonneuve are shown in the parent claim 2. Maisonneuve teaches the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer graphics application to (Maisonneuve: ) .
Maisonneuve but does not teach explicitly aligning but process in Fig.7 & 11 would require such alignment to perform modification.
Sowizral teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the NURBS procedure previously applied to the one or more NURBS surfaces comprises a previous alignment of a first NURBS surface to a second NURBS surface in the set of NURBS surfaces (Sowizral: [0105] showing alignment "... In one embodiment, a bounding hull is the smallest axis-aligned hull or volume within which the corresponding object or objects fit completely. Bounding hulls (also called bounding boxes or bounding volumes) may be oriented to a convenient set of axes and may be used to perform rapid visible object determination or object culling...." ; previous alignment would be next frame in the scene graph as detailed in [0106]) , and the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer graphics application to re-align an obtained new version of the first NURBS surface with the second NURBS surface in response to the modification of the subdivision surface thru the edit of the control mesh (Sowizral: [0138] "... [0138] Next, the scene graph is traversed and bounding hulls are generated (step 404). As described above, bounding hulls may change from time to time depending on the corresponding object's size, orientation and/or position within the world/scene coordinate system. Similarly, bounding hulls may also change as the result of changes in the corresponding object itself. For example, a bounding hull corresponding to a person may change in shape and size as the person moves their arms and legs and torso to change position....") .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sowizral to Maisonneuve to present a bigger picture where the objects are classified in group nodes to identify physical objects and are modified in alignment (Sowizral: Fig.4 & 9 flow). Additional motivation to combine would have been that Sowizral and Maisonneuve are analogous art to the instant claim in the field of relative change modification (Maisonneuve: Fig.7 & 11; Sowizral: Fig.4 & 9).
Regarding Claim 18
Maisonneuve teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the subdivision surface model node comprises a NURBS (Maisonneuve: Fig.7 showing NURBS (since they represent are object they are part of a group) which have control point (mesh) and topological information for modification to be modified from NURBS S0 to NURBS S1).
Maisonneuve does not teach object as group nodes
Sowizral teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the subdivision surface model node comprises a NURBS group node (Sowizral: [0102]-[0104]).
Motivation to combine is similar to claim 12 and is incorporated herein.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim(s) 9, 20, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB No. US 20160224693 A1 by MAISONNEUVE; Richard., in view of US 20040090437 A1 by Uesaki, Akira et al.
Regarding Claims 9, 20 & 29
Teachings of Maisonneuve are shown in the parent claim 2/ 20 /29.
Maisonneuve does not teach explicitly this limitation.
Uesaki teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the computer graphics application comprises an animation production program (Uesaki: Abstract; [0225] & Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Uesaki to Maisonneuve as it is well known (since Uesaki available 2004) that NURBS provides high speed and high quality image processing for animation (Uesaki: [0123] & Abstract). Further motivation to combine would have been that Uesaki and Maisonneuve are analogous art to the instant claim where Maisonneuve and Uesaki complement each other to generate animation (Maisonneuve: Use of NURBS processing; Uesaki: Abstract in animation using NURBS at high speed & accuracy providing known state of the art in animation processing).
Regarding Claim 28
Uesaki teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein obtaining the updated limit surface comprises calling an adaptive subdivision2 surface program (Uesaki teaches: adaptive subdivision as continuous beziers curve – [0082] "... In this case, the original NURBS curve is divided into two continuous rational Bezier curves. However, since these two rational Bezier curves share one control point on their connection point, "the number of control points that define the rational Bezier curves" is 7 (4.times.2-1=7)....") .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Uesaki to Maisonneuve as it is well known (since Uesaki available 2004) that NURBS provides high speed and high quality image processing for animation (Uesaki: [0123] & Abstract). Further motivation to combine would have been that Uesaki and Maisonneuve are analogous art to the instant claim where Maisonneuve and Uesaki complement each other to generate animation (Maisonneuve: Use of NURBS processing; Uesaki: Abstract in animation using NURBS at high speed & accuracy providing known state of the art in animation processing).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Saturday, July 25, 2026
1 Trimming of NURBS is well known US 5701404 A titled “Method And System For Efficiently Trimming A Nurbs Surface With A Projected Curve” (1997).
2 Specification ¶[0032] states: "... In some implementations, the subdivision surface algorithm provides adaptive subdivision, where the subdivision level is varied across the surface model. For example, the subdivision surface algorithm can be OpenSubdiv available from PIXAR®; OpenSubdiv is capable of computing the limit surface 240 as a set of mostly continuous bi-cubic Bézier patches having a topology 245...."
Prosecution Insights