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 Amendment filed on 01/08/2026.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the case.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1 comprises the following limitations:
“…one or more annotations 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 annotations related to the tessellated model…
…a plurality of content objects related to the tessellated model…
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “a user interface for a lightweight viewer, the user interface executable on a computing device and comprising: a computing device operable to execute…” The claim starts by indicating that the user interface is executable on a computing device, which implies that the user interface is software. This is consistent with the specification. The specification indicates that the user interface is a graphical user interface (software), specification: ¶ [0049], [0052]. The claim then states that the user interface comprises “a computing device operable to execute…” This would require that the software (user interface) comprise a hardware component (computing device). While it is possible for hardware to comprise/store software, such as the disclosed computing device comprising the user interface (specification: Fig. 1), it is not possible for software to comprise hardware. Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-10:
Claims 2-10 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims.
Claim 5:
Claim 5 recites “wherein the one or more view objects include a plurality of view objections.” It is unclear what “view objections” are. The specification does not provide any teaching of “view objections.” Accordingly, the scope of the claim can not be determined. For the sake of prior art analysis, Examiner assumes that “view objections” should be “view objects.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunderson et al. (US 2013/0249906 A1, published 09/26/2013, hereinafter “Gunderson”) in view of Jim Merry (“Making comments on 3D objects in Acrobat 9 Pro Extended,” published 05/07/2009, hereinafter “Merry”).
Independent Claim 1:
Gunderson discloses a user interface for a lightweight viewer comprising:
a computing device operable to execute a modeling environment including a viewing window wherein the viewing window is operable to display geometry established by one or more of geometric objects of a tessellated model, wherein one or more annotation objects of the tessellated model are assigned information associated with the respective one or more geometric objects, and the one or more annotation objects are operable to depict the respective information as a graphical annotation in the viewing window (The user interface is for a PDF viewer (lightweight viewer) and is executed on a computing device, Gunderson: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0011], [0029]-[0033]. The PDF viewer comprises a workspace window 48 (viewing window), Gunderson: Fig. 2, ¶ [0035]. The workspace window 48 displays a tessellated model, Gunderson: Fig. 2, ¶ [0035]. The view comprises annotation objects that are assigned information corresponding to objects within the model, Gunderson: Fig. 4, ¶ [0045].).
Gunderson does not appear to expressly teach a user interface for a lightweight viewer wherein the modeling environment includes a search window wherein the search window is established by a plurality of content objects of the tessellated model, the content objects including a query object and a results object dynamically linked to the query object, wherein the query object establishes a query input field operable to query the information of the one or more annotation objects based on input in the query input field, and the results object is operable to display a list of results meeting the query.
However, Merry teaches a user interface for a lightweight viewer wherein the modeling environment includes a search window wherein the search window is established by a plurality of content objects of the 3D model, the content objects including a query object and a results object dynamically linked to the query object, wherein the query object establishes a query input field operable to query the information of the one or more annotation objects based on input in the query input field, and the results object is operable to display a list of results meeting the query (The user can provide an input to view comments (annotations) relating to the 3D model within the Adobe Acrobat application (lightweight viewer), which causes a search window to be displayed, Merry: Figs. 8 and 9, pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51]. The search window comprises an input field for receiving input queries for searching the comments (annotations) related to the 3D model and a results window that displays the results of the query search, Merry: Figs. 9-12 and pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51]. Since the query input and results window relate to comments (annotations) of the 3D model, Examiner considers the query input field and results window to be related to the 3D model.).
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 for a lightweight viewer of Gunderson to wherein the modeling environment includes a search window wherein the search window is established by a plurality of content objects of the 3D model, the content objects including a query object and a results object dynamically linked to the query object, wherein the query object establishes a query input field operable to query the information of the one or more annotation objects based on input in the query input field, and the results object is operable to display a list of results meeting the query, as taught by Merry.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in finding comments related to the 3D model (Merry: Figs. 9-12 and pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51]).
In implementing the comment search feature of Merry into the invention of Gunderson, the searched comments associated with the 3D model (as taught by Merry) would correspond to a tessellated model since the 3D model associated with comments (annotations) correspond to a tessellated model in the invention of Gunderson. Accordingly, in combination Gunderson in view of Merry teaches a user interface of a lightweight viewer wherein the modeling environment includes a search window wherein the search window is established by a plurality of content objects of the tessellated model, the content objects including a query object and a results object dynamically linked to the query object, wherein the query object establishes a query input field operable to query the information of the one or more annotation objects based on input in the query input field, and the results object is operable to display a list of results meeting the query.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry further teaches a user interface for a lightweight viewer wherein selection of a result from the list causes a depiction of the geometry to change in the viewing window (When the user clicks on one of the results, the view of the 3D model changes, Merry: Figs. 11 and 12, pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51]).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in navigating to a particular comment within the visualization of tessellated model (Merry: Figs. 11 and 12, pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51]).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry further teaches a user interface for a lightweight viewer further comprising:
a navigation window operable to display one or more view objects, the one or more view objects associated with a respective depiction of the one or more geometric objects; wherein the list of results includes the one or more view objects meeting the query; and wherein the viewing window is operable to display the depiction in response to selection of the associated result (Since the results window comprises a list of comments that when selected navigates the user to a corresponding view of the 3D model, Examiner considers the results window to be a navigation window and the comments within the results to be view objects, Merry: Figs. 11 and 12, pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51].).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry further teaches a user interface for a lightweight viewer wherein the one or more annotation objects include a plurality of annotation objects associated with the one or more view objects (A first comment in the results window can be selected to cause the view of the model to navigate to a first view comprising the first comment and a second comment in the results window can be selected to navigate to a second view comprising the second comment, Merry: Figs. 10-12, pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51]. Since the selected comments within the results window navigates the user to a corresponding view of the 3D model, Examiner considers the comments within the results window to be view objects,).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in navigating to a particular comment within the visualization of tessellated model (Merry: Figs. 11 and 12, pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51]).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry further teaches a user interface wherein the one or more view objects include a plurality of view objections, and the annotation objects include a first annotation object and a second annotation object associated with one or more different view objects (A first comment in the results window can be selected to cause the view of the model to navigate to a first view comprising the first comment and a second comment in the results window can be selected to navigate to a second view comprising the second comment, Merry: Figs. 10-12, pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51].).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry further teaches a user interface for a lightweight viewer wherein the results object is associated with a counter object, and the counter object is operable to indicate a quantity of results in the list (The results include an object the indicates the number of results (e.g. “1 documents with 2 instances”), Merry: Figs. 11.).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing the user with a better understanding of a number of results that have been returned based on the user’s input, which is particularly helpful when there is a large number of results that cannot be fully displayed within the search results window (Merry: Figs. 11.).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry further teaches a user interface for a lightweight viewer wherein the search window is spaced apart from, but concurrently displayed with, the viewing window (Merry: Figs. 10-12, pages 8 and 9 [00:02:19]-[00:06:51].).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to effectively present the search window and 3D model without obscuring either one.
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry further teaches a user interface wherein the tessellated model excludes any CAD model associated with the geometry (The tessellated model can be a U3D formatted data that is embedded within the PDF document, Gunderson: ¶ [0035].).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunderson in view of Merry and further in view of Bains et al. (US 2017/0212903 A1, published 07/27/2017, hereinafter “Bains”).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry does not appear to expressly teach a user interface wherein the one or more annotation objects are associated with a set of annotation types, the content objects include one or more category search objects each associated with one or more of the annotation types, and the category search objects are operable to limit the query to the respective one or more annotation types in response to user interaction.
However, Bains teaches a user interface wherein the one or more annotation objects are associated with a set of annotation types, the content objects include one or more category search objects each associated with one or more of the annotation types, and the category search objects are operable to limit the query to the respective one or more annotation types in response to user interaction (The annotations can be associated with a set of annotation types, Bains: ¶ [0030]. The search interface comprises icons associated with the different types/categories of annotations which limit the search query to the selected category, Bains: Figs. 6-18, ¶ [0033]-[0037], [0041]-[0044], [0046], [0052].).
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 Gunderson in view of Merry wherein the one or more annotation objects are associated with a set of annotation types, the content objects include one or more category search objects each associated with one or more of the annotation types, and the category search objects are operable to limit the query to the respective one or more annotation types in response to user interaction, as taught by Bains.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing a means for the user to more finely search for an annotation on interest (Bains: Figs. 6-18, ¶ [0033]-[0037], [0041]-[0044], [0046], [0052].).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Gunderson in view of Merry and further in view of Bains teaches a user interface wherein the annotation types include an identifier annotation type and a datum annotation type (Bains: Figs. 11 and 18, ¶ [0041]-[0042], [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-10 are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 4 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 4 and 5 are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1 because Gunderson and Merry fail to teach that the annotation is part of the alleged tessellated model (Remarks: pages 7-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim recites “…one or more annotations objects of the tessellated model…” and “…a plurality of content objects of the tessellated object…” As presented in page 4 of the Non-Final Office Action (Claim interpretation section) filed on 10/08/2025, according to Merriam-Webster.com the term “of” can mean “relating to: about.” Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interpreted these limitations to mean:
…one or more annotations related to the tessellated model…
…a plurality of content objects related to the tessellated model…
Since the annotation objects and content objects relate to the tessellated model in Gunderson and Merry, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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