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 Interpretations - 35 USC § 101
The limitations “c1) modifying at least one of said parameters, thereby obtaining a modified 3D model and 3) outputting the modified 3D model” is a practical application of modifying a 3D model based on a sketch input from a user.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There limitation “said parameters” in lines 10 and 18 appear to be typographical errors of “said set of parameters”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: There limitation “each non-rectilinear part” appears to be a typographical error of “each non-rectilinear part of said non-rectilinear parts”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typographical error of a semicolon before the comma in line 29. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “said vectors” in lines 22-23 appears to be a typographical error of “said u, v vectors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: There limitation “said parameters” in lines 21 and 29 appear to be typographical errors of “said set of parameters”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: There limitation “said parameters” in lines 9 and 17 appear to be typographical errors of “said set of parameters”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: There limitation “each non-rectilinear part” appears to be a typographical error of “each non-rectilinear part of said non-rectilinear parts”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: There limitation “aa” in line 1 appears to be a typographical error of “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “said vectors” in lines 10-11 appears to be a typographical error of “said u, v vectors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “said vectors” in lines 30-31 appears to be a typographical error of “said u, v vectors”. 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 1-20 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 1, the phrase "an initial 3D model" in line 15 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the initial 3D model is the same as the 3D model in line 5 or a different 3D model. As best understood by the examiner they are intended to be the same 3D model and should be consistently labeled with appropriate antecedent basis throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "each endpoint of each rectilinear part" in line 26 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of endpoints without previously reciting a set of endpoints and each rectilinear part without an antecedent basis reference to said first set of rectilinear parts. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate to overcome the rejection. (i.e. “each endpoint of a set of endpoints of each rectilinear part of said first set of rectilinear parts”).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "each segment " in line 28 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of segments without previously reciting a set of segments. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate to overcome the rejection. (i.e. “each segment of a set of segments”).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "an endpoint of a rectilinear part " in line 28 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be a new endpoint of a new rectilinear part or a specific endpoint of the previously recited endpoints of previously recited rectilinear parts. The applicant can overcome the rejection by referencing the appropriate, previously recited endpoint or distinguishing with a different contextual descriptor.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "each rectilinear part" in line 30 renders the claim indefinite because is not clear if these are intended to be a new set of rectilinear parts or part of said first set of rectilinear parts. The applicant can overcome the rejection by linking to a particular set and consistent with descriptions of the set throughout the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "each extruded segment " in line 31 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of extruded segments without previously reciting a set of extruded segments. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate to overcome the rejection. (i.e. “each extruded segment of a set of extruded segments”) .
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "each endpoint" in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of endpoints without referencing a particular set of endpoints. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate. (i.e. “each endpoint of the second set of endpoints”).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "each segment " in line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of segments without previously reciting a set of segments. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate to overcome the rejection. (i.e. “each segment of a set of segments”) .
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "each extruded segment " in line 10 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of extruded segments without previously reciting a set of extruded segments. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate to overcome the rejection. (i.e. “each segment of a set of segments”).
Regarding claim 6, the variables "
l
h
,
l
s
i
d
e
,
e
1
,
e
2
,
e
3
" render the claim indefinite because they are not previously defined in the claim dependency and it is not clear what each of these individual variables represent. The applicant can overcome the rejection by defining he variables in the claim by providing a description of the variable. The examiner further notes that different font scripts are utilized for different equations which could also cause confusion and should be corrected as well.
Regarding claim 6, some of the variables (e.g. nbSides, h,
l
h
) in the equations use italicized fonts and non-italicized fonts, which could represent different values and it is not clear if it is intended to be the same variable across multiple equations. The applicant should use consistent fonts throughout the claims to avoid issues of variables not being clearly representative of the same function/value.
Regarding claim 8, the variables "
l
h
,
l
s
i
d
e
,
e
1
,
e
2
,
e
3
" render the claim indefinite because they are not previously defined in the claim dependency and it is not clear what each of these individual variables represent. The applicant can overcome the rejection by defining he variables in the claim by providing a description of the variable. The examiner further notes that different font scripts are utilized for different equations which could also cause confusion and should be corrected as well.
Regarding claim 8, some of the variables (e.g. K, nbPoints,
p
i
)in the equations use italicized fonts and non-italicized fonts which could represent different values and it is not clear if it is intended to be the same variable across multiple equations. The applicant should use consistent fonts throughout the claims to avoid issues of variables not being clearly representative of the same function/value.
Regarding claim 9, some of the variables (e.g.
P
m
o
d
e
l
,
P
t
a
r
g
e
t
)in the equations use italicized fonts and non-italicized fonts which could represent different values and it is not clear if it is intended to be the same variable across multiple equations. The applicant should use consistent fonts throughout the claims to avoid issues of variables not being clearly representative of the same function/value.
Regarding claim 9, the variable
p
k
renders the claim indefinite because it is not previously defined in the claim dependency and it is not clear what this variable represents. The applicant can overcome the rejection by defining he variables in the claim. The examiner further notes that different font scripts are utilized for different equations which could also cause confusion and should be corrected as well.
Regarding claim 10, some of the variables in the equations use italicized fonts and non-italicized fonts which could represent different values and it is not clear if it is intended to be the same variable across multiple equations. The applicant should use consistent fonts throughout the claims to avoid issues of variables not being clearly representative of the same function/value.
Regarding claim 10, the variable
p
'
J
,
q
renders the claim indefinite because it is not previously defined in the claim dependency and it is not clear what this variable represents. The applicant can overcome the rejection by defining he variables in the claim. The examiner further notes that different font scripts are utilized for different equations which could also cause confusion and should be corrected as well.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "an initial 3D model" in line 26 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the initial 3D model is the same as the 3D model in line 16 or a different 3D model. As best understood by the examiner they are intended to be the same 3D model and should be consistently labeled with appropriate antecedent basis throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "an initial 3D model" in line 14 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the initial 3D model is the same as the 3D model in line 4 or a different 3D model. As best understood by the examiner they are intended to be the same 3D model and should be consistently labeled with appropriate antecedent basis throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "each endpoint" in line 25 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of endpoints without referencing a particular set of endpoints. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate. (i.e. “each endpoint of the second set of endpoints”).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "each segment " in line 27 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of segments without previously reciting a set of segments. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate to overcome the rejection. (i.e. “each segment of a set of segments”).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "each extruded segment " in line 30 renders the claim indefinite because it appears to be referencing a set of extruded segments without previously reciting a set of extruded segments. The applicant can overcome the rejection by amending the claim as appropriate to overcome the rejection. (i.e. “each segment of a set of segments”).
Claims 2, 7, 11, 15-20 are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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, and objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Li et al. (“Sketch2CAD: Sequential CAD Modeling by Sketching in Context” 2020)(Hereinafter referred to as Li)
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches A computer-implemented method for designing a 3D model in an AR/VR environment (We present a sketch-based CAD modeling system, where users create objects incrementally by sketching the desired shape edits, which our system automatically translates to CAD operations. See abstract)(VR environment can be considered CAD modeling environment), comprising: a) obtaining a 3D model in a 3D scene, the 3D model including at least one extruded section which results from the extrusion of a planar section, said extruded section being defined by a set of parameters (An existing shape can be considered initial 3D model)(Operators supported in Sketch2CAD. In each inset, the parameters defining the operator are annotated and the corresponding sketches are shown over the existing shape, while the result of applying the respective operation is shown as the updated shape. See figure 4 and caption)( Sketch2CAD at inference time. Given an existing shape and input sketch strokes (shown in orange) for the current operation, we first obtain the maps of sketch and local context (i.e., depth and normal), which are fed to the operator classification and segmentation networks. The classified operator type, sweep in this example, is used to select the output base face and curve segmentation maps, based on which the parameters defining the operator are fitted, via an optimization, to recover the sketched operation instance. The recovered operator is then applied to the existing shape to produce the updated model; meanwhile, the operation is pushed into the protocol list. See figure 3 and caption); b) receiving a 3D user sketch in the 3D scene (see figure 3, merely example sketch, user can create desired sketch on any plane);
c) at each iteration of a plurality of iterations: c1) modifying at least one of said parameters, thereby obtaining a modified 3D model(In the sketch-based CAD modeling, our primary goal is to interpret a sketch drawn over an existing shape as the corresponding operator with proper parameters that changes the shape to match the 2D sketch. The overall process is illustrated in Fig. 3. See section 3 Method overview, right col., first paragraph);, and d) outputting the modified 3D model (See figure 3, Resulting Shape matching the sketch), but is silent to c2) performing a discretization of the modified 3D model, thereby obtaining a 3D point cloud; c3) computing an energy which comprises a first term which penalizes an inconsistency between the modified 3D model and an initial 3D model, and a second term which penalizes a mismatch between the 3D point cloud and the 3D user sketch, said parameters being modified to minimize said energy.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “c2) performing a discretization of the modified 3D model, thereby obtaining a 3D point cloud; and c3) computing an energy which comprises a first term which penalizes an inconsistency between the modified 3D model and an initial 3D model, and a second term which penalizes a mismatch between the 3D point cloud and the 3D user sketch, said parameters being modified to minimize said energy” of claim 1 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 1 and thus claim 1 contains allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “c2) performing a discretization of the modified 3D model, thereby obtaining a 3D point cloud; c3) computing an energy which comprises a first term which penalizes an inconsistency between the modified 3D model and an initial 3D model, and a second term which penalizes a mismatch between the 3D point cloud and the 3D user sketch, said parameters being modified to minimize said energy; ” of claim 12 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 12 and thus claim 12 contains allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “c2) perform a discretization of the modified 3D model, thereby obtaining a 3D point cloud; c3) compute an energy which comprises a first term which penalizes an inconsistency between the modified 3D model and an initial 3D model, and a second term which penalizes a mismatch between the 3D point cloud and the 3D user sketch, said parameters being modified to minimize said energy; ” of claim 13 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 13 and thus claim 13 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-11, 14-20 contain allowable subject matter because they depend on a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beltrand (US 2022/0058865)(Hereinafter referred to as Beltrand), generally discloses sketch to 3D cad models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS R WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00PM.
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 (572)-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.
/NICHOLAS R WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611