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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 6th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 17, and 18 have overcome the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed February 6th 2026. Further search has been performed to address the material amended in the aforementioned claims. Newly found reference Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1) was used for the amended claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 6th 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation “defining visual properties of the node” is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, because the prior art cited in the previous action was used for the remaining limitations in the independent claims, the Examiner would like to address the corresponding arguments.
The Applicant argues that: “Santos seems to be silent regarding anything that can reasonably be considered to suggest […] manipulating an extruded three-dimensional drawing through changes to one or more features of one or more nodes defining the two-dimensional drawing.”
Santos describes “an extrude instruction configured to generate volume to planar surfaces of the polygon based on user-defined profile” [0012]. Figure 4 showcases instructions after the Extrude node, namely a Select and two Overlay nodes. Santos further teaches that: “A user may […] apply instructions to [a starting sketch] in order to arrive at a 3D model of its design. Once this model is created, the user will mix and match instructions at will” [0031]. Therefore, the Examiner submits that the Select and Overlay instructions may manipulate the 3D data output by the Extrude node.
Furthermore, Santos teaches that a user may “add or remove outputs and inputs” in [0062]. In Figure 4 of Santos, it is shown that each node has an input and output parameter that may be connected to other nodes. Therefore, the Examiner submits that Santos teaches “manipulating an extruded three-dimensional drawing through changes to one or more features of one or more nodes defining the two-dimensional drawing”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1) and Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Santos teaches:
A method for generating a three-dimensional drawing representing an object (Santos: A method for three-dimensional modeling through constrained sketches, Abstract), the method comprising:
presenting, by a processor of a three-dimensional visualization system (Santos: a computer-readable medium storing previous items; a computing device processor to fulfill inputs [0027]) a two-dimensional sketching user interface (Santos: the present invention may include at least one computing device with a user interface [0026]; Santos: Figure 7)
receiving, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, two-dimensional sketch data (Santos: constrained sketches 12 [0027]), the two-dimensional sketch data defining a plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes comprising one of a plurality of node types, (Santos: Instructions are collected as a series of nodes in a graph as represented in FIG. 4, [0041]) and the plurality of nodes defining a two-dimensional sketch (see Note 1C) of at least a portion of the object (Santos: each node representing a type of instruction of a set of instructions; […] wherein the starting sketch is an initial input of the set of instructions [0011]); wherein each node type of the plurality of node types comprises one or more features defining at least one of position of the node (see Note 1D), and relationship to other nodes of the plurality of nodes (see Note 1D);
reading, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, node data for each of the plurality of nodes defined in the two-dimensional sketch data (Santos: A coder would create software capable of describing and executing the concepts of the invention, including but not limited to a system capable of reading: […] a directed graph of instructions 22 (representable through user interface modeling tools 20, as illustrated in FIG. 4 [0031]); and
extruding, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, the three-dimensional drawing representing the object (Santos: an extrude instruction configured to generate volume to planar surfaces of the polygon based on user-defined profile [0012]) from the node data, wherein the three- dimensional drawing is manipulated through changes to one or more features of one or more nodes (Santos: the user will be able to add and remove outputs and inputs. [0062]; see Note 1E) of the plurality of nodes defining the two-dimensional sketch (Santos: A user may define a starting (or root) sketch 24 as a labeled polygon or similar and will proceed to apply instructions to it in order to arrive at a 3D model of its design. Once this model is created, the user will mix and match instructions at will. [0031]; see Note 1F).
Note 1C: In Figures 2 and 3, Santos showcases two-dimensional “constrained sketches 12”. In Figure 4, Santos showcases a graph of nodes or “instructions”. Santos teaches that the constrained sketches “may include a geometric shape, such as a polygon, wherein one or more of the geometric primitives of the geometric shape is associated with constraints (12a, 12b and 16);” [0027] and that “a set of instructions [is] capable of converting a set of inputs into outputs (for example, a cut line 16 constraining the sketch 12)” [0027]. In other words, the instructions in the graph may modify or impose constraints on the sketch.
Santos teaches that “Instructions are collected as a series of nodes in a graph as represented in FIG. 4.” Therefore, the constraints for the sketch 12 are represented as nodes. Notably, the node graph in Figure 4 contains a Cut node (between the Inset and Extrusion nodes) that could correspond to a cut line constraint, such as the cut line 16 in the two-dimensional sketch depicted in Figure 3.
Santos further teaches that: “The output of the cut instruction will be fed into a new extrude instruction that will create the house's volume based on the profiles assigned to each segment.” [0032]. That is, prior to an Extrude instruction, the sketch remains two-dimensional. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the plurality of nodes may define a two-dimensional sketch.
Note 1D: Santos showcases in Fig. 4 that each instruction may have a position in a user interface. Santos also showcases that instructions are connected as inputs or outputs to other instructions.
Note 1E: Santos teaches that: “Any chain of steps can be converted into a function, which defines a new instruction that can be used anywhere in the instruction graph to perform the chain of instructions that originated the function. Said function will take its input from the first instruction in the original instruction set, the outputs are computed initially by collecting any output going outside the function. After created, the user will be able to add and remove outputs and inputs.” [0062]. Put simply, the user can directly adjust the input and output connections of a node created from a chain of steps. Said node may be utilized in the manipulation of a 3D drawing, as discussed in Note 1F. Additionally, the inputs and outputs are understood to be features of the instructions or “nodes”, as they are among the parameters connecting each node depicted in Figure 4 of Santos.
Note 1F: Santos provides an example of a user utilizing the instructions or “nodes” to manipulate a 3D house in [0032]: “For a simple usage, by way of illustration, a user may create a rectangular sketch and label the faces “front”, “back” and “side” appropriately. The output of that instruction will be redirected into the input of a new instruction of type “Cut” where the floorplan of the house will be created as successive cuts. The resulting segments will be assigned profiles (2D paths showing how the walls will go up and form the roof). The output of the cut instruction will be fed into a new extrude instruction that will create the house's volume based on the profiles assigned to each segment.” The Examiner interprets the house as modified by the Extrude instruction to be 3D because Santos also teaches: “The invention herein introduced creates 3D models by executing a series of connected steps (or instructions)” [0033].
Therefore, the Examiner submits that Santos teaches that “the three-dimensional drawing is manipulated through changes to one or more features of one or more nodes of the plurality of nodes defining the two-dimensional sketch”.
Santos fails to explicitly teach:
wherein each node type of the plurality of node types comprises one or more features defining at least one of visual properties of the node.
receiving, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, two-dimensional sketch data through the two-dimensional sketch user interface
Yasuo teaches:
presenting, by a processor of a three-dimensional visualization system (Yasuo: the data processing device 2 includes a personal computer, the display device 4 includes a display, and the external storage device 3 includes an HDD, a DVD, and the like, [0048]), a two-dimensional sketching user interface (Yasuo: FIG. 4 shows an example of a GUI screen activated by the three-dimensional CAD system [0025]);
receiving, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, two-dimensional sketch data through the two-dimensional sketch user interface (Yasuo: When the XZ plane is designated as the sketch plane, the screen changes to the sketch mode shown in FIG. 5 and the GUI screen changes to a view perpendicular to the sketch plane. The designer sketches a two-dimensional profile using the input device 1 such as a mouse. [0053]), the two-dimensional sketch data defining a plurality of nodes and the plurality of nodes defining a two-dimensional sketch of at least a portion of the object (Yasuo: In step B9, the element dividing means 20 divides the basic figure into two-dimensional elements. At that time, the division is performed so that the number of divided adjacent sides is the same, and the nodes are shared, [0039]; see Note 1A);
reading, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, node data for each of the plurality of nodes defined in the two-dimensional sketch data (see Note 1B); and
extruding, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, the three-dimensional drawing representing the object (Yasuo: By a three-dimensional operation such as extrusion performed in the process of three-dimensional design, the basic shape region is also simultaneously extruded and converted into a three-dimensional volume, [0014]) from the node data (Yasuo: In step B9, the element dividing means 20 divides the basic figure into two-dimensional elements. At that time, the division is performed so that the number of divided adjacent sides is the same, and the nodes are shared [0039]; see Note 1A).
Note 1A: Yasuo teaches that the sketch may be divided into elements or “nodes”, and that the nodes are then shared. Yasuo further teaches: “the two-dimensional profile divided into the elements is similarly extruded and three-dimensionalized,” [0040]. Therefore, the extrusion is performed on the sketch representing the object from the node data.
Note 1B: Extruding the sketch based on the node data, as described in Note 1A, will inherently require the processor to read the node data that has been received.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yasuo with Santos. Receiving, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, two-dimensional sketch data through the two-dimensional sketch user interface, as in Yasuo, would benefit the Santos teachings by enabling a user to easily draw sketches with a preferred input device (Yasuo: The designer sketches a two-dimensional profile using the input device 1 such as a mouse, [0053]) without having to worry about the intricacies of 3D movement (Yasuo: When the XZ plane is designated as the sketch plane, the screen changes to the sketch mode shown in FIG. 5 and the GUI screen changes to a view perpendicular to the sketch plane [0053]).
Santos in view of Yasuo still fails to explicitly teach:
wherein each node type of the plurality of node types comprises one or more features defining at least one of visual properties of the node.
Schmittler teaches:
wherein each node type of the plurality of node types comprises one or more features defining at least one of visual properties of the node (Schmittler: Independent of these transformations, a sequence of instructions can also be specified for an object, in addition. This sequence of instructions can change the properties of the object. This includes the geometrical properties (in the case of a sphere, its radius, for example) and the material properties (its color, for example). [0017]; see Note 1G).
Note 1G: The instructions taught by Schmittler are interpreted to be analogous to the sequence of instructions taught by Santos (in Figure 4, for example). Because the instructions in Schmittler may contain material and geometric properties, the Examiner interprets Schmittler to teach a node type comprising one or more features defining at least one of visual properties of the node.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schmittler with Santos in view of Yasuo. Each node type of the plurality of node types including one or more features defining at least one of visual properties of the node, as in Schmittler, would benefit the Santos in view of Yasuo teachings by enabling user control over visual properties of the output model.
Regarding claim 3:
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein receiving the two-dimensional sketch data comprises receiving a user input through the two-dimensional sketching user interface (Yasuo: The designer first designates a sketch plane for creating the first feature. When the XZ plane is designated as the sketch plane, the screen changes to the sketch mode shown in FIG. 5 and the GUI screen changes to a view perpendicular to the sketch plane. The designer sketches a two-dimensional profile using the input device 1 such as a mouse,” [0053])
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 13 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 13 claims a system instead of a method. {name} teaches a system:
“A system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor (Santos: The computing device may include at least one processing unit and a form of memory, [0026]) and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to generate a three-dimensional drawing representing an object (Santos: The computing device includes a program product including a machine-readable program code for causing, when executed, the computing device to perform steps, [0026]) by: …”
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 3, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 15 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 15 claims a system instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 13, it was shown that Santos teaches a system.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 17 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 17 claims a non-transitory, computer-readable medium instead of a method. {name} teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium: “
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to generate a three-dimensional drawing representing an object (Santos: The computing device includes a program product including a machine-readable program code for causing, when executed, the computing device to perform steps, [0026]) by: …”
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 3, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 19 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 19 claims a non-transitory, computer-readable medium instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 17, it was shown that Santos teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
Claim 2, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1), Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A) and Fu (US 20130262041 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), further comprising:
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo fails to teach:
receiving, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, manipulation of the two-dimensional sketch data through the two-dimensional sketching user interface;
tracking, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, the received manipulations of the two-dimensional sketch data; and
updating, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, the three-dimensional drawing based on the tracking of the received manipulations of the two-dimensional sketch data.
Fu teaches:
receiving, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, manipulation of the two-dimensional sketch data through the two-dimensional sketching user interface (Fu: a two-dimensional sketch having objects in a view plane of the user is received. […] For example, a user draws lines or curves on a piece of paper or a screen of a computer [0032]; Fu: The sketching tool may be used to edit or add to an already existing 3D model. [0082]) wherein the manipulation of the two-dimensional sketch data (Santos: A user may define a starting (or root) sketch 24 as a labeled polygon or similar and will proceed to apply instructions to it in order to arrive at a 3D model of its design. [0032]) comprises a change to at least one feature of at least one node of the plurality of nodes (Santos: the user will be able to add and remove outputs and inputs. [0062]; see Note 1E and Note 2A); ;
tracking, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, the received manipulations of the two-dimensional sketch data (see Note 2B); and
updating, by the processor of the three-dimensional visualization system, the three-dimensional drawing based on the tracking of the received manipulations of the two-dimensional sketch data (Fu: The user draws in two-dimensions to indicate the addition or change relative to the 3D model. The processor 16 extrapolates the drawing relative to the 3D model [0082]).
Note 2A: Fu teaches a sketch user interface that may be used by the user to create a two-dimensional sketch, as cited above. Santos further teaches that a series of “instructions” or nodes may be utilized to manipulate the 2D sketch by changing inputs and outputs of the nodes (see also Note 1E). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Fu with Santos, because Fu teaches: “In a third aspect, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium has stored therein data representing instructions executable by a programmed processor for three-dimensional model determination from a two-dimensional sketch.”
Note 2B: In order for the processor to extrapolate the drawing relative to the 3D model, the processor must inherently track the drawing or ‘received manipulations’ from the user.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fu with Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo. Receiving a manipulation of the sketch from the user, tracking said manipulation, and updating the three dimensional drawing, as in Fu, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teachings by enabling a user to refine a sketch while minimizing errors in the output 3D sketch data (Fu: The geometry of the 2D sketch is altered in the view plane (x, y) or 2D input instead of maintaining the geometry of the 2D sketch and only modifying in the view direction (z). Gaps may be reduced through alteration of the 2D geometry, Abstract).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 14 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 14 claims a system instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 13, it was shown that Santos teaches a system.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 18 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 18 claims a non-transitory, computer-readable medium instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 17, it was shown that Santos teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
Claim 4, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1), Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A) and Ramani (US 20040249809 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein receiving the two-dimensional sketch data comprises receiving an indication of an image file (Santos: A popular approach, for which several patents have been granted, try to reconstruct 3D meshes from images and/or video. The inventor considers these methods orthogonal to the present invention in the sense that the objective of reconstruction is to reproduce existing objects whereas the present invention intends to create new ones. [0005])
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo fails to teach:
wherein receiving the two-dimensional sketch data comprises receiving an indication of an image file through the two-dimensional sketching user interface and reading the indicated image file.
Ramani teaches:
wherein receiving the two-dimensional sketch data comprises receiving an indication of an image file (Ramani: raster images [0363]) through the two-dimensional sketching user interface (Ramani: 2D Drawing Interface: Users are provided options to send in their scanned drawings to the server. [0213-0214]) and reading the indicated image file (Ramani: A complete raster to vector conversion process includes image acquisition, pre-processing, line tracing, text extraction, shape recognition, topology creation and attribute assignment [0367]; see Note 4A).
Note 4A: Ramani teaches that text extraction and shape recognition may be performed on the raster image. Both text extraction and shape recognition require reading the raster image data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ramani with Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo. Receiving an indication of an image file through a user interface and reading the image file, as in Ramani, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teachings by enabling a user to import a previously created sketch or image rather as opposed to recreating the sketch within the software.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 16 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 16 claims a system instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 13, it was shown that Santos teaches a system.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 4, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 20 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 20 claims a non-transitory, computer-readable medium instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 17, it was shown that Santos teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1), Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A) and Blender Documentation Team (NPL: Transform Node; hereinafter Blender A).
Regarding claim 5:
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a mesh node type, the mesh node type defining one or more of position, rotation, or scaling for the node.
Blender A teaches:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a mesh node type, the mesh node type defining one or more of position, rotation, or scaling for the node (Blender A: The Transform Node allows you to move, rotate or scale the geometry, Pg. 1, par. 1; see Note 5A and Note 7A below).
Note 5A: The Transform Node taught by Blender A visibly contains the position, rotation, and scaling parameters. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the position, rotation, and scaling as defined “for the node”.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Transform Node as seen on Pg. 1 of the Blender A reference.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blender A with Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo. Including a mesh node defining one or more of position, rotation, or scaling for the node, as in Blender A, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teachings by enabling a user to freely transform mesh geometry affected by the node graph.
Regarding claim 6:
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a mesh feature node type, the mesh feature node type providing for manipulation of one or more features of the node.
Blender A teaches:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a mesh feature node type, the mesh feature node type providing for manipulation of one or more features of the node (see Note 6A and Note 7A).
Note 6A: In Note 5A, it was shown that Blender A teaches a Transform Node where position, rotation, and scaling are all features of the node. Blender A further teaches that the position, rotation, and scale parameters are inputs, and therefore can be changed by the user. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Blender A teaches a mesh feature node providing for manipulation of one or more features of the node.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blender A with Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo. Including a mesh feature node providing for manipulation of one or more features of the node, as in Blender A, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teachings by enabling a user to freely transform mesh features affected by the node graph.
Claim 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1), Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A) and Science Monkey (NPL: Mate Connectors in Onshape).
Regarding claim 7:
Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a connector node type, the connector node type comprising a position property and a direction property defining point on a mesh for use by other nodes.
Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Science Monkey teaches:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a connector node type, the connector node type comprising a position property and a direction property defining point on a mesh for use by other nodes (see Note 7A and Note 7B).
Note 7A: Santos teaches: “A user may define a starting (or root) sketch 24 as a labeled polygon or similar and will proceed to apply instructions to it in order to arrive at a 3D model of its design” [0032]. That is, each operation performed by the user may be considered an “instruction” and therefore be added as a corresponding node: “Instructions are collected as a series of nodes in a graph as represented in FIG. 4,” [0041].
Note 7B: Science Monkey creates a mate connector as part of creating a sketch at 6:46 in the video. The mate connector is shown to have a position in 3D space. Then, Science Monkey re-aligns the mate connector at a 30 degree angle.
PNG
media_image2.png
654
1294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Science Monkey places a mate connector at 6:46.
PNG
media_image3.png
803
1427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
803
1427
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Science Monkey changes the direction of the mate connector at 8:22 in the video.
It is shown by the video that Science Monkey gives instructions to the software to create a mate connector on a mesh with a specific position and direction. In Note 7A, it was shown that all instructions may be turned into nodes in a node graph. Santos teaches: “The list of possible instructions is constrained only by a user's imaginations and includes all algorithms in the computing device graphics literature.” [0031] Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate a mate connector node or a “connector node” comprising a position property and a direction property defining point on a mesh for use by other nodes.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Science Monkey with Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo. Including a connector node comprising a position property and a direction property defining point on a mesh for use by other nodes, as in Science Monkey, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teachings by enabling a user to freely connect mesh geometry affected by the node graph.
Regarding claim 11:
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a mate node type, the mate node type comprising properties to link a plurality of other nodes.
Science Monkey teaches:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a mate node type, the mate node type comprising properties to link a plurality of other nodes (see Note 11A and Note 7A above).
Note 11A: Science Monkey showcases that a “mate” may be connected to another mate at 5:43 to 5:46 in the video.
PNG
media_image5.png
803
1429
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Selecting the first mate at 5:43.
PNG
media_image6.png
801
1430
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Selecting a second mate.
PNG
media_image7.png
799
1427
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Connecting the first mate with the second mate.
It is shown by the video that Science Monkey gives instructions to the software to link one mate to another. In Note 7A, it was shown that all instructions may be turned into nodes in a node graph. Santos teaches: “The list of possible instructions is constrained only by a user's imaginations and includes all algorithms in the computing device graphics literature.” [0031] Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate a mate node comprising properties to link a plurality of other nodes.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Science Monkey with Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo. Including a mate node comprising properties to link a plurality of other nodes, as in Science Monkey, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teachings by enabling a user to freely link mesh geometry affected by the node graph.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1), Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A) and Blender Documentation Team: (NPL: Image Texture Node; hereinafter Blender B).
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a texture layer node type, the texture layer node type comprising a path to an image and properties to scale, blend, or colorize the image to other nodes.
Blender B teaches:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a texture layer node type, the texture layer node type comprising a path to an image (Blender B: The Image Texture is used to add an image file as a texture, Pg. 1, par. 1; see Note 8A) and properties to scale (Blender B: Texture coordinate for texture look-up, Pg. 1, par. 2; see Note 8B), blend, or colorize the image to other nodes.
Note 8A: Adding an image file as a texture requires obtaining the path to the image file.
Note 8B: It is well known in the art that texture coordinates (also known as UV coordinates) may be used to offset, rotate, or scale an image texture on a mesh.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blender B with Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo. Including a texture layer node comprising a path to an image and properties to scale, blend, or colorize the image to other nodes, as in Blender B, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teachings by enabling a user to add textures to a mesh in order to simulate a real object.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1), Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A), Blender Documentation Team: (NPL: Image Texture Node; hereinafter Blender B) and Blender Documentation Team: (NPL: Principled BSDF, hereinafter Blender C).
Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Blender B teaches:
The method of claim 8 (as shown above),
Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Blender B fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a material node type, the material node type comprising a plurality of ordered texture nodes.
Blender C teaches:
wherein the plurality of nodes comprise a material node (Blender C: This “Uber” shader includes multiple layers to create a wide variety of materials, Pg. 1, par. 2), the material node comprising a plurality of ordered texture nodes (Blender C: Image textures painted or baked from software like Substance Painter® may be directly linked to the corresponding parameters in this shader, Pg. 1, par. 1; see Note 9A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blender C with Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Schmittler, Blender B. Including a texture layer node comprising a path to an image and properties to scale, blend, or colorize the image to other nodes, as in Blender C, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Blender B teachings by enabling a user to add textures to a mesh in order to simulate a real object.
Note 9A: The Principled BSDF node has inputs for image textures listed in a specific order. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Principled BSDF node will link to texture nodes in order.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1), Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A) and Blender Documentation Team: (NPL: Light Node; hereinafter Blender D).
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises a light node type, the light node type defining properties affecting light or color on a surface of the three-dimensional drawing.
Blender D teaches:
wherein the plurality of nodes comprise a light node, the light node defining properties affecting light or color on a surface (Blender D: The Light Output node is used to output light information to a light object, Pg. 1, par. 1; Blender D: Inputs: Surface: Shading for the surface of the light object, Pg. 1, par. 2) of the three-dimensional drawing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blender D with Santos in view of Yasuo. Including a light node, the light node defining properties affecting light or color on a surface of the three-dimensional drawing, as in Blender D, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Blender D teachings by enabling a user to add lighting effects to a scene in order to simulate a real object.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 20190066374 A1) in view of Schmittler (US 20060066607 A1), Yasuo (JP 2008102767 A), Onshape (NPL: Note; hereinafter Onshape A), and Blender Documentation Team (NPL: Measure, hereinafter Blender E).
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of node types comprises an annotation and dimension node type, the annotation and dimension node type comprising text and properties to attach to connector nodes.
Onshape A teaches:
an annotation tool, the annotation comprising text and properties to attach to connector nodes (Onshape A: Add single or multi-line text notes to any drawing, wherever you want, and use them to fill in the title blocks as well. You have the ability to define the size of the text box as well as format the text itself and optionally include a leader or many leaders, Pg. 1, par. 1; see Note 12A).
Note 12A: Onshape A showcases that annotations can be added to a mesh. In Note 7A, it was shown that all instructions may be turned into nodes in a node graph. Santos teaches: “The list of possible instructions is constrained only by a user's imaginations and includes all algorithms in the computing device graphics literature.” [0031] Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate an annotation node comprising text and properties to attach to connector nodes.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Onshape A with Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo. Including a annotation node comprising text and properties to attach to other nodes, as in Onshape A, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler and Yasuo teachings by enabling a user to annotate their sketch without modifying the underlying geometry.
Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Onshape A still fails to teach:
wherein the plurality of nodes comprise an annotation and dimension node, the annotation and dimension node comprising text and properties to attach to connector nodes.
Blender E teaches:
a dimension tool comprising text and properties to attach to connector nodes (Blender E: The Measure tool is an interactive tool where you can drag lines in the scene to measure distances or angles, Pg. 1, par. 1; see Note 12B).
Note 12B: Blender E showcases that dimensions can be added to a mesh in the Figure on Pg. 1. In Note 7A, it was shown that all instructions may be turned into nodes in a node graph. Santos teaches: “The list of possible instructions is constrained only by a user's imaginations and includes all algorithms in the computing device graphics literature.” [0031] Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate a dimension node comprising text and properties to attach to connector nodes.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blender E with Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Onshape A. Including a annotation node comprising text and properties to attach to other nodes, as in Blender D, would benefit the Santos in view of Schmittler, Yasuo and Onshape A teachings by enabling a user to measure their sketch with real-world units.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akihisa (JP 2010009394 A) teaches a method where a three-dimensional model can be updated via a two-dimensional sketch.
Martos (NPL: Tech Tip: Using Textures and Blends in Render Studio) teaches blending and colorizing textures for materials. Note that it may be helpful to view the live webpage as the videos on the webpage showcase details not described in the text.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)270-0728. 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.
/VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights