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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 4-10, 14-17, 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
claims 2, 4-10, 14-17, 20 include mathematical equations/expressions that comprise variables/symbols that are not all fully defined or described within the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In regards to claim(s) 10-11, independent claim(s) 10 recite(s) the mathematical concept of computing a volumetric Laplace Beltrami operator (LBO) for a tetrahedral mesh using a specific equation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is not viewed to include additional elements, it simply just claims the calculation of the LBO. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, again, the claim is not viewed to include additional elements, it simply just claims the calculation of the LBO. Additionally, dependent claim(s) 11 is/are also included as it/they also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. For example, claim 11 is simply the act of inputting the calculated abstract idea into a computer.
In regards to claim(s) 16-20, independent claim(s) 16 recite(s) the mathematical concept of down-sampling a tetrahedral mesh using a specific equation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim is directed to an abstract idea of down-sampling a tetrahedral mesh on a neural network, the recited neural network does not add a meaningful limitation as it simply amounts to the implementation of the down-sampling equation. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements added only show use of the down-sampling function. Additionally, dependent claim(s) 17-20 is/are also included as it/they also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. For example, claims 17, 20 comprise additional mathematical equations/expressions.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuter et al. (“Discrete Laplace-Bletrami Operators for Shape Analysis and Segmentation”) in view of Bar-Aviv et al. (US 2009/0028403 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Reuter teaches a method, comprising:
computing a volumetric Laplace Beltrami operator (LBO) for a mesh, wherein computing the volumetric LBO is performed based on the following function:
∆
f
v
i
=
1
d
i
∑
j
∈
N
(
i
)
k
i
,
j
(
f
v
i
-
f
v
j
)
where
N
(
i
)
includes the adjacent vertices of vertex
v
i
, and
d
i
is total tetrahedral volume of adjacent tetrahedra to vertex
v
i
, and
k
i
,
j
is the string constant (e.g. Section 2.1: discrete Laplace-Beltrami operators are usually represented as
∆
f
p
i
=
1
d
i
∑
j
∈
N
(
i
)
w
i
,
j
(
f
p
i
-
f
p
)
where
N
(
i
)
denotes the index set of the 1-ring of the vertex
p
i
, i.e. the indices of all neighbors connected to
p
i
by an edge; the masses
d
i
are associated to a vertex
i
and the
w
i
,
j
are the symmetric edge weights),
but does not explicitly teach the method,
wherein the mesh is a tetrahedral mesh.
However, Bar-Aviv teaches a method,
computing a volumetric Laplace Beltrami operator (LBO) for a tetrahedral mesh (e.g. [0315]: the mesh is converted to a mesh which every tetrahedron, defined by the vertices PI, P2, P3, and P where the projection of P onto the face of PI, P2, and P3 coincides with the center of the face; [0318]-[0320]: the mesh is mapped to a sphere by a conformal mapping … where Δ denotes the Laplace-Beltrami operator; Examiner’s note: this shows that the mesh is a tetrahedral mesh, in which the LBO may be determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Reuter to determine the LBO of a mesh, in the same conventional manner as taught by Bar-Aviv as both deal with processing meshes. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the computation of the LBO for a tetrahedral mesh.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are allowed over the prior art. To note, claim(s) 4-9 are objected to above.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. To note, claims 12-15 are included as they depend on claim 11.
Reasons for Allowance and Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim(s) 1-9 was/were carefully reviewed and a search has been made. Accordingly, those claim(s) are believed to be distinct from the prior art searched.
Regarding claim(s) 1-9 and specifically independent claim(s) 1, the prior art search was found to neither anticipate nor suggest a method of using a tetrahedral mesh on a neural network, comprising: computing a volumetric Laplace Beltrami operator (LBO) for the tetrahedral mesh; feeding into the neural network the LBO and a set of signals for each vertex of the neural network; and down-sampling the tetrahedral mesh - in combination with other claimed limitations (emphasis added).
It is viewed that any of the previously cited references or any of the prior art searched, in part or in whole, cannot be combined in such a way to render the claimed invention obvious.
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.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 11-15 was/were carefully reviewed and a search with regards to independent claim(s) 10 has been made. Accordingly, those claim(s) are believed to be distinct from the prior art searched.
Regarding claim(s) 11-15 (and specifically independent claim(s) 10), the prior art search was found to neither anticipate nor suggest the method of claim 11, further comprising feeding the volumetric LBO into a neural network (emphasis added).
It is viewed that any of the previously cited references or any of the prior art searched, in part or in whole, cannot be combined in such a way to render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am - 6pm.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616