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 is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 1/28/2026. Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-10 have been amended. Claims 1 and 3-10 are present for examination.
The objections to claims 6 and 8 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 6-10 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 3-10 stated in the non-final rejection dated 12/3/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, claims 3-5 and 9 have been further rejected under 35 USC 112(b) in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-10 have been considered but are 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.
Note: the examiner has called the attorney on 2/19/26 and 2/24/26 trying to resolve the new 35 USC 112(b) issues through an examiner’s amendment. However, the attorney could not be reached. Therefore, this final rejection has been issued.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, “output the” should be “output a”, line 20, “label definition information” should be “the label definition information”, line 22, “a predicted” should be “the predicted”, and “a partial” should be “the partial”, and line 25, “the annotation label” should be “the predicted annotation label”.
Claim 4, line 4, “a label definition” should be “the label definition”.
Claim 9, line 3, “a label definition” should be “the label definition”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 9 is/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.
Regarding claim 3, it recites “a recognition unit” and “a request from the annotation unit”. However, claim 1 also recites “a recognition unit” and “a request from the annotation unit”. It is not clear whether the recognition units from claims 1 and 3 are the same or different. It is also not clear whether the requests from the annotation unit from claims 1 and 3 are the same or different.
Regarding claim 4, it recites “a recognition unit” and “a request from the annotation unit”. However, claim 1 also recites “a recognition unit” and “a request from the annotation unit”. It is not clear whether the recognition units from claims 1 and 4 are the same or different. It is also not clear whether the requests from the annotation unit from claims 1 and 4 are the same or different. Claim 4 further recites “to learn a relation”. Claim 1 recites “to learn a label annotation relation”. It is not clear whether these two relations are the same or different.
Regarding claim 5, it recites “a partial shape of the 3D CAD model”. It is not clear whether the “partial shape of the 3D CAD model” recited in claim 5 is the same as or different than the “partial shape of the 3D CAD model” recited in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends.
Regarding claim 9, it recites “selecting the partial shape…predicting a partial shape to be annotated … predicting the label value from the partial shape…” (Emphasis added.) It is not clear whether these partial shapes are the same or different. Claim 6, from which claim 9 depends, also recites “partial shape”. It is also not clear whether the partial shapes recited in claim 9 are the same or different than the partial shape recited in claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-8, and 10 are allowed (note claim 1 has been objected for informalities).
Claims 3-5 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, it has been amended to incorporate allowable subject matter of claim 2 (now canceled) as indicated in the non-final rejection dated 12/3/2025, p. 25.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 1 with respective additional limitations.
Regarding claim 6, it has been amended to incorporate allowable subject matter of claim 11 (now canceled) as indicated in the non-final rejection dated 12/3/2025, p. 27.
Claims 7-10 depend from claim 6 with respective additional limitations.
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 HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611