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 .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 09/15/2023.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1 comprises the following limitations:
“…one or more geometric objects of the tessellated model…”
“…a plurality of content objects of the tessellated model…”
According to Merrieam-Webster.com the term “of” can mean “relating to: about.” Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner will interpret these limitations to mean:
…one or more geometric objects related to the tessellated model…
…a plurality of content objects related to the tessellated model…
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/467921 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are merely a broader version of the cited claims of the copending Application. Accordingly, the cited claims of the copending application fully anticipates the cited claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a “user interface for a lightweight viewer.” The specification defines the lightweight viewer that comprises a graphical user interface as a separate software application that is executable by a computing device and includes a graphical user interface (Specification: ¶ [0044]). Since claim 1 is void of any hardware components of a computing device and only claims the user interface for the lightweight viewer, the claim comprises software per se. Software per se is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture,” or a “composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-9:
Claims 2-9 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimaud et al. (US 2007/0013690 A1, published 01/18/2007, hereinafter “Grimaud”) in view of MacPhee et al. (US 2005/0278691 A1, published 012/15/2005, hereinafter “MacPhee”).
Independent Claim 1:
Grimaud teaches a user interface for a lightweight viewer comprising:
a viewing window operable to display geometry established by one or more geometric objects of a tessellated model (The 3D model window displays parts and assembly (geometric objects) of the 3D model, Grimaud: Fig. 1(a), ¶ [0050]. Grimaud doesn’t expressly teach the type of 3D model that is being used. However, in the background section, Grimaud teaches that the content files can be “light-weight” which includes tessellation, Grimaud: ¶ [0002]-[0004]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tessellation to create light-weight 3D models in order to utilize the less cumbersome version of a 3D model, Grimaud: ¶ [0002], [0003].); and
an information window established by a content object of the tessellated model (The property window displays the values and/or states of all the properties of the current selected element, Grimaud: Fig. 1(a), ¶ [0050], [0053]).
Grimaud does not appear to expressly teach an interface wherein the information window is established by a plurality of content objects, the content objects associated with respective layers of the tessellated model that occupy a common display region, the content objects operable to selectively display information associated with the tessellated model in response to user interaction with the respective content object such that the respective layer is activated but a remainder of the layers are deactivated in the common display region.
However, MacPhee teaches an interface wherein:
the information window is established by a plurality of content objects, the content objects associated with respective layers of an object that occupy a common display region, the content objects operable to selectively display information associated with the object in response to user interaction with the respective content object such that the respective layer is activated but a remainder of the layers are deactivated in the common display region (The interface comprises a properties window and a real-time display window of an object, MacPhee: Fig. 1, ¶ [0043], [0067]. The properties window comprises a plurality of tabs that are displayed in different layers, wherein a selected tab is displayed in a top layer (activated) and unselected tabs are not displayed (deactivated), MacPhee: Figs. 5-7, ¶ [0047], [0049], [0063], [0065].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface of Grimaud wherein:
the information window is established by a plurality of content objects, the content objects associated with respective layers of an object that occupy a common display region, the content objects operable to selectively display information associated with the object in response to user interaction with the respective content object such that the respective layer is activated but a remainder of the layers are deactivated in the common display region, as taught by MacPhee.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a more organized presentation of properties (MacPhee: Figs. 5-7, ¶ [0047], [0049], [0063], [0065].).
In implementing the tabbed property window of MacPhee into the invention of Grimaud, the object associated with the property window would correspond to a tessellated model since the object the property window in Grimaud corresponds to a tessellated model. Accordingly, in combination, Grimaud in view of MacPhee teaches a user interface wherein the information window is established by a plurality of content objects, the content objects associated with respective layers of the tessellated model that occupy a common display region, the content objects operable to selectively display information associated with the 3D model in response to user interaction with the respective content object such that the respective layer is activated but a remainder of the layers are deactivated in the common display region.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grimaud in view of MacPhee teaches a user interface wherein the common display region is spaced apart from, but concurrently displayed with, the viewing window in response to opening the tessellated model (The viewer of a 3D model “typically provides” a 3D model window and a properties window, Grimaud: ¶ [0007]. Accordingly, whenever the tessellated model is opened, the viewer will comprise these typical windows. The 3D model window and the properties window are spaced apart, Grimaud: Fig. 1(a), ¶ [0050]. The properties window has the common display region, MacPhee: Figs. 5-7, ¶ [0047], [0049], [0063], [0065].).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grimaud in view of MacPhee teaches a user interface wherein the information window is established by a plurality of tab objects of the tessellated model, the tab objects are arranged in an array to depict a tabbed interface, the tab objects are associated with respective ones of the content objects, and each of the tab objects is operable to selectively activate the layer of the respective content object and deactivate the remainder of the layers in response to user interaction with the respective tab object (Grimaud: Fig. 1(a), ¶ [0050]; MacPhee: Figs. 5-7, ¶ [0047], [0049], [0063], [0065].).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Grimaud in view of MacPhee teaches a user interface wherein the array is directly adjacent to the common display region (MacPhee: Figs. 5-7, ¶ [0047], [0049], [0063], [0065].).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grimaud in view of MacPhee further teaches a user interface further comprising:
a navigation window operable to display one or more view objects, each of the one or more view objects associated with a respective depiction of the one or more geometric objects (The tree structure window (navigation window) provides a list of parts that can be selected to cause the view of the 3D Model to change so that the corresponding part is highlighted within the 3D model window, Grimaud: Fig. 1(a), ¶ [0007].);
wherein the viewing window is operable to display the depiction in response to selection of the respective view object (Grimaud: Fig. 1(a), ¶ [0007].); and
one or more of the content objects is dynamically linked to one or more of the view objects such that the information assigned to the respective content object updates in response to selection of the respective view object (Grimaud: Fig. 1(a), ¶ [0007], [0053], [0055].).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimaud in view of MacPhee and further in view of Berteig et al. (US 5,986,657, issued 11/16/1999, hereinafter “Berteig”).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grimaud in view of MacPhee does not appear to expressly teach a user interface wherein one or more of the content objects is associated with a scroll bar object adjacent to the common display region.
However, Berteig teaches a user interface wherein one or more of the content objects is associated with a scroll bar object adjacent to the display region of the content object (The content objects are displayed in a sub area of a window and can be displayed with a scroll bar next to said sub-region, Berteig: Fig. 4B, Table 1.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface of Grimaud in view of MacPhee wherein one or more of the content objects is associated with a scroll bar object adjacent to the display region of the content object, as taught by Berteig.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better manage screen space and allow for more content to be accessible in the limited space of the display region (Berteig: Fig. 4B, Table 1.).
In implementing the scrollbar feature of Berteig into the invention of Grimaud in view of MacPhee, the region that displays the content object would correspond to a common display region since the content objects are displayed within the common display region in the invention of Grimaud in view of MacPhee. Accordingly, in combination, Grimaud in view of MacPhee and further in view of Berteig teaches a user interface wherein one or more of the content objects is associated with a scroll bar object adjacent to the common display region.
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Grimaud in view of MacPhee and further in view of Berteig teaches a user interface wherein the scroll bar object is operable to cause a visible portion of the activated layer to vary in response to user interaction (The scroll bar allows you to see additional portions of the content object displayed in the display region, Berteig: Fig. 4B, Table 1. The display region that displays the content object is a common display region that displays an activated layer corresponding to selected content object tab, MacPhee: Figs. 5-7, ¶ [0047], [0049], [0063], [0065].).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimaud in view of MacPhee and further in view of Gunderson et al. (US 2013/0249906 A1, published 09/26/2013, hereinafter “Gunderson”).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grimaud in view of MacPhee does not appear to expressly teach a user interface wherein the tessellated model excludes any CAD model associated with the geometry.
However, Gunderson teaches a user interface wherein the tessellated model excludes any CAD model associated with the geometry (Gunderson: ¶ [0035], [0041]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user interface of Grimaud in view of MacPhee wherein the tessellated model excludes any CAD model associated with the geometry, as taught by Gunderson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a known tessellated format that can be effectively used for the light-weight content files (Gunderson: ¶ [0035], [0041]; Grimaud: ¶ [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph 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 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.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Hirschtick et al., US 2016/0246899 A1 (The 3D viewer is a light weight viewer that comprises a viewing window for a tessellated model and a tabbed interface, Fig. 6, ¶ [0155]-[0158])
Phillips et al., US 2004/0046776 A1 (The viewer has window for displaying the 3D model and includes a tabbed interface, Figs. 4 and 5, ¶ [0051], [0080])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights