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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12 and 19 recite “pdf files” instead of “PDF files.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “a successful and unsuccessful previously released item.” It’s unclear how the previously released item could be both successful and unsuccessful. For examination, this limitation is interpreted as “successful and/or unsuccessful.”
Claims 11 and 18 recite “the animation file.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites “providing, on the client device, interfaces,” which is already recited in the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitti et al. (US 2016/0140499) in view of Apperson (US 2014/0375957), Adrien et al. (US 2008/0294498), and Horn et al. (US 2019/0156545).
Regarding claim 1, Mitti teaches/suggests: A method of transforming a three-dimensional computer-aided design file into an
obtaining, by a server over a network interface, the three-dimensional computer-aided design file generated using a first computer program (Mitti [0029]-[0030] “the server computer receives one or more modified documents from the one or more mobile devices of the one or more users in the field via one or more communication networks … an engineering drawing may be in the form of a computer-aided design (CAD) document configured to operate with a CAD software application … a 3D CAD model”);
transforming, by a processor in the server (Mitti [0018] “one or more processors running computer-executable software instructions”), the three-dimensional computer-aided design file into an
Mitti does not teach/suggest an animation file. Nor does Mitti teach/suggest:
displaying, by a client device, an animation from the animation file using a second computer program;
Apperson, however, teaches/suggests an animation file (Apperson [0014] “the circuit layout can be in any file format or executable code (e.g., animation) that allows for display of images”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the converted file of Mitti to include the executable code of Apperson for animation. As such, Mitti as modified by Apperson teaches/suggests:
displaying, by a client device, an animation from the animation file using a second computer program (Mitti [0030] “That formatted document may then get pushed to or called by a mobile device” Apperson [0014] “the circuit layout can be in any file format or executable code (e.g., animation) that allows for display of images”);
Mitti further discloses in [0036]: “The EPDM system may receive workflow feedback information from the mobile devices of the users in the field.” Mitti as modified by Apperson does not teach/suggest:
collecting opinion data of an item in the animation file;
analyzing the opinion data;
Adrien, however, teaches/suggests:
collecting opinion data of an item (Adrien [0045] “The manufacturer, designer, and/or provider of the example commercial offering(s) may employ market research techniques (e.g., focus groups, opinion polls, surveys, etc.) and provide results from such techniques to the concept scoring engine 702”);
analyzing the opinion data (Adrien [0045] “Each consumer response to a standard consumer measure 704 and/or an evaluative factor is assigned a score by the concept scoring engine 702”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedback information of Mitti as modified by Apperson to include the opinion data of Adrien for market research. As such, Mitti as modified by Apperson and Adrien teaches/suggests:
collecting opinion data of an item in the animation file (Apperson [0014] “the circuit layout can be in any file format or executable code (e.g., animation) that allows for display of images” Adrien [0045] “The manufacturer, designer, and/or provider of the example commercial offering(s) may employ market research techniques (e.g., focus groups, opinion polls, surveys, etc.) and provide results from such techniques to the concept scoring engine 702”);
Mitti further teaches/suggest interfaces (Mitti [0039] “A touch-sensitive user interface of the user's mobile device may facilitate electronically marking up the engineering drawing”). Mitti as modified by Apperson and Adrien does not teach/suggest:
providing, on the client device, interfaces to enable a user to manipulate the animation.
Horn, however, teaches/suggests:
providing, on the client device, interfaces to enable a user to manipulate the animation (Horn [0088] “whom can then open the document data 132 to view the rendering of the object or even modify animation parameters to change the animation”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interfaces of Mitti as modified by Apperson and Adrien to manipulate the animation as taught/suggested by Horn for editing.
Regarding claim 2, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the animation file is a GIF file (Mitti [0030] “Suitable simplified formats may include raster format or vector format”). The raster format meets the GIF file.
Regarding claim 3, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the animation file is an MPEG file (Mitti [0030] “a 3D CAD model may be simplified to a set of JPEG images” Apperson [0014] “the circuit layout can be in any file format or executable code (e.g., animation) that allows for display of images”). The concept and advantages of MPEG are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious for the animated file of Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn to be in the MPEG format for the animation. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the client device is a mobile device (Mitti [0030] “That formatted document may then get pushed to or called by a mobile device”).
Regarding claim 5, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein opinion data is input via the interfaces or via a second interface (Mitti [0039] “A touch-sensitive user interface of the user's mobile device may facilitate electronically marking up the engineering drawing” [0036] “The EPDM system may receive workflow feedback information from the mobile devices of the users in the field” Adrien [0045] “The manufacturer, designer, and/or provider of the example commercial offering(s) may employ market research techniques (e.g., focus groups, opinion polls, surveys, etc.) and provide results from such techniques to the concept scoring engine 702”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn teaches/suggests: The method of claim 5, further comprising:
generating a report, by the server, using the opinion data (Mitti [0036] “An engineering manager or other authorized user may access the EPDM system to review the workflow feedback information” Adrien [0018] “Output from the example summary generator 108 of FIG. 1 may allow the analyst an opportunity to determine, based on the applied framework 106, which (if any) facet(s) of the concept are particularly promising and which (if any) facet(s) of the concept are candidate(s) for improvement or elimination” [A summary is considered a report.]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 7, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein the second computer program comprises a web browser. Adrien further teaches/suggests a web browser (Adrien [0032] “The GUI 400 may be implemented via, without limitation, an API, a kiosk, and/or a web-page accessible via a modem, an intranet, and/or the Internet”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the animated file of Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn to be displayed on the webpage (the web browser) of Adrien to communicate over the Internet.
Regarding claim 8, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the second computer program comprises a client application (Mitti [0039] “The software application can allow the user to electronically mark-up (e.g., make notes, lines, circles, sketches, etc.) the engineering drawing on his mobile device”).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitti et al. (US 2016/0140499) in view of Apperson (US 2014/0375957), Adrien et al. (US 2008/0294498), and Horn et al. (US 2019/0156545) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaus (US 2013/0006827).
Regarding claim 9, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the opinion data comprises weighting the opinion data of the item according to a correlation of the opinion data of a successful and[/or] unsuccessful previously released item to a commercial success value of the successful and[/or] unsuccessful previously released item, respectively. Kaus, however, teaches/suggests weighting the opinion data (Kaus [0074] “opinions are weighted based on the correlation of past opinions with actual market movement”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the opinion data of Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Horn to be weighted as taught/suggested by Kaus to correlate past opinions with market performance.
As such, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, Horn, and Kaus teaches/suggests weighting the opinion data of the item according to a correlation of the opinion data of a successful and unsuccessful previously released item to a commercial success value of the successful and unsuccessful previously released item, respectively (Adrien [0038] “which exposes concept characteristics that tend to reflect successful and/or unsuccessful market performance” Kaus [0074] “opinions are weighted based on the correlation of past opinions with actual market movement”).
Regarding claim 10, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, Horn, and Kaus teaches/suggests: The method of claim 9, further comprising determining a value score based on the correlation (Adrien [0045] “Each consumer response to a standard consumer measure 704 and/or an evaluative factor is assigned a score by the concept scoring engine 702” Kaus [0074] “opinions are weighted based on the correlation of past opinions with actual market movement” [0041] “The weighted opinions are combined in step 310 to determine an overall approval/disapproval value for proposed transaction 300”). The same rationales to combine as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitti et al. (US 2016/0140499) in view of Apperson (US 2014/0375957), Adrien et al. (US 2008/0294498), and Kaus (US 2013/0006827).
Regarding claim 11, Mitti teaches/suggests: A method of transforming a three-dimensional computer-aided design file into one or more image files and displaying one or more images from the one or more image files, comprising:
obtaining, by a server over a network interface, the three-dimensional computer-aided design file generated using a first computer program (Mitti [0029]-[0030] “the server computer receives one or more modified documents from the one or more mobile devices of the one or more users in the field via one or more communication networks … an engineering drawing may be in the form of a computer-aided design (CAD) document configured to operate with a CAD software application … a 3D CAD model”);
transforming, by a processor in the server (Mitti [0018] “one or more processors running computer-executable software instructions”), the three-dimensional computer-aided design file into one or more images files (Mitti [0030] “a document may be converted by the server computer to a more simplified format … a document in a CAD format may be converted to a document in a PDF format”);
displaying, by a client device, one or more images from the one or more image files using a second computer program (Mitti [0030] “That formatted document may then get pushed to or called by a mobile device”);
providing, on the client device, interfaces to enable a user to manipulate the one or more images (Mitti [0039] “A touch-sensitive user interface of the user's mobile device may facilitate electronically marking up the engineering drawing”);
Mitti does not teach/suggest the animation file. Apperson, however, teaches/suggests the animation file (Apperson [0014] “the circuit layout can be in any file format or executable code (e.g., animation) that allows for display of images”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Mitti further discloses in [0036]: “The EPDM system may receive workflow feedback information from the mobile devices of the users in the field.” Mitti as modified by Apperson does not teach/suggest:
collecting opinion data of an item in the animation file; and
analyzing the opinion data,
Adrien, in view of Apperson, teaches/suggests:
collecting opinion data of an item in the animation file (Apperson [0014] “the circuit layout can be in any file format or executable code (e.g., animation) that allows for display of images” Adrien [0045] “The manufacturer, designer, and/or provider of the example commercial offering(s) may employ market research techniques (e.g., focus groups, opinion polls, surveys, etc.) and provide results from such techniques to the concept scoring engine 702”); and
analyzing the opinion data (Adrien [0045] “Each consumer response to a standard consumer measure 704 and/or an evaluative factor is assigned a score by the concept scoring engine 702”),
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Mitti as modified by Apperson and Adrien does not teach/suggest:
wherein analyzing the opinion data comprises weighting the opinion data of the item according to a correlation of the opinion data of a successful and unsuccessful previously released item to a commercial success value of the successful and unsuccessful previously released item, respectively, and
wherein a value score is determined.
Kaus, however, teaches/suggests weighting the opinion data (Kaus [0074] “opinions are weighted based on the correlation of past opinions with actual market movement”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the opinion data of Mitti as modified by Apperson, and Adrien to be weighted as taught/suggested by Kaus to correlate past opinions with market performance. As such, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus teaches/suggests:
weighting the opinion data of the item according to a correlation of the opinion data of a successful and unsuccessful previously released item to a commercial success value of the successful and unsuccessful previously released item, respectively (Adrien [0038] “which exposes concept characteristics that tend to reflect successful and/or unsuccessful market performance” Kaus [0074] “opinions are weighted based on the correlation of past opinions with actual market movement”), and
wherein a value score is determined (Adrien [0045] “Each consumer response to a standard consumer measure 704 and/or an evaluative factor is assigned a score by the concept scoring engine 702” Kaus [0041] “The weighted opinions are combined in step 310 to determine an overall approval/disapproval value for proposed transaction 300”).
Regarding claim 12, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus teaches/suggests: The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more image files are JPEG files or PDF files (Mitti [0030] “a document in a CAD format may be converted to a document in a PDF format … a 3D CAD model may be simplified to a set of JPEG images”).
Regarding claim 13, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus teaches/suggests: The method of claim 11, wherein the client device is a mobile device (Mitti [0030] “That formatted document may then get pushed to or called by a mobile device”).
Regarding claim 14, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus teaches/suggests: The method of claim 11, further comprising:
providing, on the client device, interfaces or a second interface to enable a user to input opinion data (Mitti [0039] “A touch-sensitive user interface of the user's mobile device may facilitate electronically marking up the engineering drawing” [0036] “The EPDM system may receive workflow feedback information from the mobile devices of the users in the field” Adrien [0045] “The manufacturer, designer, and/or provider of the example commercial offering(s) may employ market research techniques (e.g., focus groups, opinion polls, surveys, etc.) and provide results from such techniques to the concept scoring engine 702”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus teaches/suggests: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
generating a report, by the server, comprising the value score and/or the opinion data (Mitti [0036] “An engineering manager or other authorized user may access the EPDM system to review the workflow feedback information” Adrien [0018] “Output from the example summary generator 108 of FIG. 1 may allow the analyst an opportunity to determine, based on the applied framework 106, which (if any) facet(s) of the concept are particularly promising and which (if any) facet(s) of the concept are candidate(s) for improvement or elimination” [A summary is considered a report.]),
wherein the value score is based on the correlation (Adrien [0045] “Each consumer response to a standard consumer measure 704 and/or an evaluative factor is assigned a score by the concept scoring engine 702” Kaus [0074] “opinions are weighted based on the correlation of past opinions with actual market movement” [0041] “The weighted opinions are combined in step 310 to determine an overall approval/disapproval value for proposed transaction 300”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 11, wherein the second computer program comprises a web browser. Adrien further teaches/suggests a web browser (Adrien [0032] “The GUI 400 may be implemented via, without limitation, an API, a kiosk, and/or a web-page accessible via a modem, an intranet, and/or the Internet”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the animated file of Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus to be displayed on the webpage (the web browser) of Adrien to communicate over the Internet.
Regarding claim 17, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus teaches/suggests: The method of claim 11, wherein the second computer program comprises a client application (Mitti [0039] “The software application can allow the user to electronically mark-up (e.g., make notes, lines, circles, sketches, etc.) the engineering drawing on his mobile device”).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitti et al. (US 2016/0140499) in view of Apperson (US 2014/0375957), Adrien et al. (US 2008/0294498), Kaus (US 2013/0006827), and Tison et al. (US 2012/0249588).
Claim 18 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 11, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus does not teach/suggest an augmented reality display. Nor does Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus teach/suggest:
displaying, by a client device, a live view captured by an image capture unit;
superimposing, by the client device, one or more images from the one or more image files on the live view using a second computer program;
Tison, however, teaches/suggests an augmented reality display (Tison [0020] “multiple appliances may be used for viewing the visual data, including augmented reality (AR) glasses”). Tison further teaches/suggests:
displaying, by a client device, a live view captured by an image capture unit (Tison [0016] “a handheld visualization tool, such as a handheld device combining a camera with a video display, is used to combine a real-world view as seen by the camera with a computer-provided overlay of data or images relevant to the real-world view”);
superimposing, by the client device, one or more images from the one or more image files on the live view using a second computer program (Tison [0016] “combine a real-world view as seen by the camera with a computer-provided overlay of data or images relevant to the real-world view”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the converted file of Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, and Kaus to be combined with the real-world view as taught/suggested by Tison for augmented reality.
Regarding claim 19, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, Kaus, and Tison teaches/suggests: The method of claim 18, wherein the one or more image files are JPEG or PDF files (Mitti [0030] “a document in a CAD format may be converted to a document in a PDF format … a 3D CAD model may be simplified to a set of JPEG images”).
Regarding claim 20, Mitti as modified by Apperson, Adrien, Kaus, and Tison teaches/suggests: The method of claim 18, further comprising:
generating a report, by the server, comprising the value score, the opinion data, or both (Mitti [0036] “An engineering manager or other authorized user may access the EPDM system to review the workflow feedback information” Adrien [0018] “Output from the example summary generator 108 of FIG. 1 may allow the analyst an opportunity to determine, based on the applied framework 106, which (if any) facet(s) of the concept are particularly promising and which (if any) facet(s) of the concept are candidate(s) for improvement or elimination” [A summary is considered a report.]),
wherein the value score is based on the correlation (Adrien [0045] “Each consumer response to a standard consumer measure 704 and/or an evaluative factor is assigned a score by the concept scoring engine 702” Kaus [0074] “opinions are weighted based on the correlation of past opinions with actual market movement” [0041] “The weighted opinions are combined in step 310 to determine an overall approval/disapproval value for proposed transaction 300”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2020/0388083 – 3D conversion of digital file
US 2024/0210740 – evaluate relevance of design
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619