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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments filed on June 24, 2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 5 and 16 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
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 6-8 and 17-18 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the rendering", “the comparison”, “the latest neutral data-structure”, “the geometric object”, “the previously stored data-structure”, “the hash value of the latest neutral data structure” and “the hash value of the previously stored neutral data structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claim 6 to be dependent on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the has value", “the neutral data-structure”, “the geometric object”, “the string”, “the hash value of the geometric object” and “the checksum value for the string”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claim 7 to be dependent on claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the rendering", “the comparison”, “the latest neutral data-structure”, “the geometric object”, “the previously stored data-structure”, “the hash value of the latest neutral data structure” and “the hash value of the previously stored neutral data structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claim 17 to be dependent on claim 14.
Claims 8 and 18 depend on the rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies and thus, are rejected for at least the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 9-15 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, Coad teaches an improved software development tool which displays versions of source code with the indications of the edits in a graphical representation, wherein the graphical representation of the source code is not merely a text representation on a user interface. Each version reflects an instance in an edit history, i.e., reflects the changes made to the source code.
Resig teaches providing output(s) of machine readable instructions that provide software comprising one or more lines of machine-readable instructions. The one or more lines are associated with an output upon execution by a computer processor, and the output comprises at least one visual and/or audible component. Next, the software is executed using a computer processor to generate the output. The one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then displayed on an electronic display of the user. In some cases, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are displayed on a web-based user interface on the electronic display. Based on one or more edits received from the user, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then updated. In some cases, the machine-readable instructions are updated without re-executing the software..
Mukherjee teaches translating models generated in one modeling environment into models that can be used in other modeling environments are disclosed. Models are created using different data formats in different modeling environments. These data formats are generally incompatible with each other. Therefore, the present invention provides a neutral data format that can store information relating to models generated in one modeling environment, and that can be used by other modeling environments to create their models. The present invention may export models created in one modeling environment into the neutral data format. The neutral data format may subsequently be imported into other modeling environments in which new models are generated using the information contained in the neutral data format. The present invention also provides animation of the newly generated models by animation clients via open animation interfaces that support multiple animation clients at a simultaneous time.
Neither Coad, Resig nor Mukherjee, anticipate or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claims 1, 11 and 14 recited as “wherein the rendering comprises: computing a hash value of each of the neutral data-structure received at the inter-process communication channel at different points in time, during a debugging session”, “comparing a hash value of a latest neutral data-structure with a hash value of a previously stored neutral data-structure” and “rendering the geometric object corresponding to the latest neutral data-structure, based on the comparison”. That is, the claims require the rendering to include computing a hash value of each of the neutral data-structure received at the inter-process communication channel at different points in time, during a debugging session. Further, comparing a hash value of a latest neutral data-structure with a hash value of a previously stored neutral data-structure. Further still, rendering the geometric object corresponding to the latest neutral data-structure, based on the comparison.
The aforementioned limitations and reasons are in conjunction with all other claim limitations and the structure and environment which are not specifically recited in the quotes or expounded upon in the reasons. The Notice of Allowability is based on the totality of the claims. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-34, filed June 24, 2026, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings, claim objection of claim 9, §101 rejection of claims 1-20 and §103 rejection of claims 1-4, 10-11, 13-15 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30am-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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights