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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 of application 18/677,274 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-5, 8-13, 16-19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12020365. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As per claim 2 in the instant invention, the following is a claim analysis chart comparison:
Instant invention 18/677,274, claim 2
12020365, claim 2
A system to refactor content corresponding to three-dimensional (3D) assets, the system comprising: one or more processors and non-transitory memory to:
A system to refactor content corresponding to three- dimensional (3D) assets, the system comprising: a processor and non-transitory memory to:
deform, using a blendshape that is based at least in part on a landmark map that correlates a first landmark in a donor model to a second landmark in a target model, the target model into a modified target model that adheres to a target 3D modeling standard;
deform, based on the blendshape, the target model into a modified target model with the second shape and in adherence with the target 3D modeling standard;
a landmark map that correlates the first landmark with the second landmark;
modify, based on a determination that the donor model is incompatible with a target 3D modeling application corresponding to the target 3D modeling standard, an aspect of the target model to adhere to the target 3D modeling application;
modify, based on a determination that the donor model is incompatible with a target 3D modeling application corresponding to the target 3D modeling standard, an aspect of the target model to adhere with the target 3D modeling application;
generate, based on the target model, a dummy mesh having the second landmark;
generate, based on the target model, a dummy mesh having the second landmark
and translate, to match the first landmark and vertices surrounding the first landmark, a vertex of the dummy mesh at a location at the target model, the location indicated by the second landmark, the blendshape corresponding to offsets of the dummy mesh.
and translate, to match the first landmark and vertices surrounding the first landmark, a vertex of the dummy mesh at the second location, the blendshape corresponding to offsets of the dummy mesh.
As seen in the chart above, claim 2 in the instant invention has many of the same features and steps as those in claim 2 of US Patent 12020365. While the claims are not word-for-word identical repeats, the claims do appear to be obvious variations of one another in terms of the functionality being performed.
Claims 14 and 21 of application 18/677,274 also correspond similarly to claim 2 of US Patent 12020365.
The dependent claims are also based on the dependent claims in 12020365. The main difference between the instant application and 12020365 is that 12020365 includes more steps.
Claim 3 and part of 15 of the instant application corresponds to “a donor model not in adherence with the target 3D modeling standard…the target model in adherence with the target 3D modeling standard” in claim 2 of patent 12020365.
Claim 4 and part of 15 of the instant application corresponds to “based on a first landmark that indicates a first location at the donor model and a second landmark that indicates a second location at the target model and corresponding to the first location” in claim 2 of patent 12020365.
Claim 5 and part of 16 of the instant application corresponds to “translate, to match the first landmark and vertices surrounding the first landmark, a vertex at the second location and corresponding to the target model.” to claim 2 of patent 12020365.
Claim 6 and part of 16 of the instant application corresponds to “generate, based on the landmark map and based on positional differences between vertices of the target model and the second shape, a blendshape” to claim 2 of patent 12020365.
Claim 7 and 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of patent 12020365.
Claim 8 and 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of patent 12020365.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to “based on a similarity between a first shape of a target model in adherence with a target 3D modeling standard and a second shape of a donor model” in claim 2 of patent 12020365.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of patent 12020365.
Claim 11 and 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of patent 12020365.
Claim 12 and 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of patent 12020365.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to “a landmark map that correlates the first landmark with the second landmark” of claim 2 of patent 12020365.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to skip over steps in which would not be needed for the specific use case.
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 2-21 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. Claims 2, 14, and 21 recited the limitation “…adherence with the target 3D modeling standard ….”, however “3D modeling standard” is not something previously known in the art and is not well described in the claims, in that a standard can be different when in regards to different use cases. Therefore, the claims 2, 14, and 21 and all dependent claims 3-13 and 15-20 are also thereby indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the language of the claims when taken as a whole, raise questions as whether the claims fall within any of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 14 refers to “refactor content corresponding to three-dimensional (3D) assets” of which the Examiner deems maybe interpreted as solely performed via software. Although the preamble of claim 14 recites “A method” this element solely occurs within the preamble and in combination with a such a definition from Applicant’s specification, allows for the interpretation that the “refactor content corresponding to three-dimensional (3D) assets” can solely be performed in “software” thus constituting a rejection due to failing to fall within at least one of the statutory categories. Therefore, such claimed elements are software per se, which fails to fall within a statutory category of invention and necessitates the rejection of claims 14-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENIS VASILIY MINKO whose telephone number is (571)270-5226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-6:00 EST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/DENIS VASILIY MINKO/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612