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 1, 14, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a plane” in step c2, appears to be a typographical error of “the plane” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, 14, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “said extruded section”, lines 5, 2, and 24 respectively appear to be a typographical errors of “said at least one extruded section”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 4 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the equations appear to have character errors which should be removed/corrected. See line 13 of claim 3, line 22 of claim 4 and lines 14 and 17 of claim 12.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the equation utilizes different italicized variable which appear to be intended to be the same variable, but would technically represent different variable. The applicant can overcome this objection Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “(3)”, line 15 appears to be a typographical error and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be an extra period in line 17 on page 6 after claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “(3)”, line 5 on page 7 appears to be a typographical error and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “(3)”, line 23 and “(5)” in line 17 on page 7 appear to be a typographical errors and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “(3)”, line 6 and “(5)” in line 1 on page 8 appear to be a typographical errors and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “(3)”, line 21 and “(5)” in line 16 on page 8 appear to be a typographical errors and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “(3)”, line 6 and “(5)” in line 1 on page 9 appear to be a typographical errors and should be removed. 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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 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 2, the limitations “the section in the 3D scene” in line 23, “the section of the initial 3d model” in line 29, “the section” in line 32, and “the section” in line 4 on page 2 render the claim indefinite because it is not clear which section is being referred to as “the section” could be said at least one extruded section or said at least one linear extruded section. The applicant can overcome the rejection by providing the appropriate details missing from the limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “said vectors” in line 33 renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which vector is being referred to. The applicant can overcome the rejection by providing the appropriate details missing from the limitation (e.g. “said u, v vectors”).
Regarding claim 3, 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. 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 5 numerous variables are not defined in the claims and 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.
Regarding claim 12, the equation renders the claim indefinite because various variable 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. The examiner further notes that different font scripts are utilized for different equations which also causes confusion and should be corrected as well as it cannot be determined if the variables are intended to represent the same variable or a new variable.
Claims 13, 17, 18, 20 are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 (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), comprising:
a) obtaining an initial 3D model in a 3D scene, the initial 3D model including at least one extruded 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 user sketch on a plane perpendicular to a sight of view direction (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 perspective projection, on the plane perpendicular to the sight of view direction, of the modified 3D model, thereby obtaining a 2D visible wireframe, said 2D visible wireframe including visible inner and outer edges of the modified 3D model, c3) computing an energy which including a first term which penalizes an inconsistency between the modified 3D model and the initial 3D model, and a second term which penalizes a mismatch between the 2D visible wireframe and the 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 perspective projection, on the plane perpendicular to the sight of view direction, of the modified 3D model, thereby obtaining a 2D visible wireframe, said 2D visible wireframe including visible inner and outer edges of the modified 3D model, c3) computing an energy which including a first term which penalizes an inconsistency between the modified 3D model and the initial 3D model, and a second term which penalizes a mismatch between the 2D visible wireframe and the 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 perspective projection, on the plane perpendicular to the sight of view direction, of the modified 3D model, thereby obtaining a 2D visible wireframe, said 2D visible wireframe including visible inner and outer edges of the modified 3D model; and c3) computing an energy which including a first term which penalizes an inconsistency between the modified 3D model and the initial 3D model, and a second term which penalizes a mismatch between the 2D visible wireframe and the user sketch (3), said parameters being modified to minimize said energy.” Of claim 14 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 14 and thus claim 14 contains allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “c2) perform a perspective projection, on the plane perpendicular to the sight of view direction, of the modified 3D model, thereby obtaining a 2D visible wireframe, said 2D visible wireframe including the visible inner and outer edges of the modified 3D model; and c3) compute an energy which including a first term which penalizes an inconsistency between the modified 3D model and the initial 3D model, and a second term which penalizes a mismatch between the 2D visible wireframe and the user sketch (3), said parameters being modified to minimize said energy; and d) outputting the modified 3D model. ” Of claim 15 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 15 and thus claim 15 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-13, 16-20 contain allowable subject matter because they depend on an allowed claim.
Conclusion
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