DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on November 5, 2024, which claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/611085, filed on December 15, 2023. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-20 are pending on the application.
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 .
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 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “receiving a polygon mesh that includes a plurality of vertices… subdividing the polygon mesh to generate a plurality sub-vertices… determining a first normal vector of a first vertex in the polygon mesh and a second normal vector of a second vertex in the polygon mesh, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” in lines 2-6 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “a plurality sub-vertices” recited in line 3 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to a plurality of “sub-vertices” of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a plurality sub-vertices” recited in line 3 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to a plurality “sub-vertices” that are not related the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a first vertex in the polygon mesh” and “a second vertex in the polygon mesh” recited in lines 4-5 of the claim, respectively, encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “first vertex in the polygon mesh” and “second vertex in the polygon mesh” encompass embodiments that do not correspond to any of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes the claimed “receiving a polygon mesh that includes a plurality of vertices… subdividing the polygon mesh to generate a plurality sub-vertices… determining a first normal vector of a first vertex in the polygon mesh and a second normal vector of a second vertex in the polygon mesh, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” recited in lines 2-6 of the claim will be interpreted as “receiving a polygon mesh that includes a plurality of vertices… subdividing the polygon mesh to generate a plurality sub-vertices [from the plurality of vertices]… determining a first normal vector of a first vertex [from the plurality of vertices] in the polygon mesh and a second normal vector of a second vertex [from the plurality of vertices] in the polygon mesh, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the plurality of sub-vertices located on the edge” in line 7 of the claim. Claim 1 recites “the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the plurality of sub-vertices located on the edge” recited in line 7 of the claim as there is no mention in the claim of locating “sub-vertices” on the claimed “edge”. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “receiving… a polygon mesh that includes a plurality vertices… subdividing the polygon mesh to generate a plurality sub-vertices… determining a first normal vector of a first vertex in the polygon mesh and a second normal vector of a second vertex in the polygon mesh, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” in lines 2-8 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “a plurality sub-vertices” recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to a plurality “sub-vertices” of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a plurality sub-vertices” recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to a plurality “sub-vertices” that are not related the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a first vertex in the polygon mesh” and “a second vertex in the polygon mesh” recited in lines 6-8 of the claim, respectively, encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “first vertex in the polygon mesh” and “second vertex in the polygon mesh” encompass embodiments that do not correspond to any of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes the claimed “receiving… a polygon mesh that includes a plurality vertices… subdividing the polygon mesh to generate a plurality sub-vertices… determining a first normal vector of a first vertex in the polygon mesh and a second normal vector of a second vertex in the polygon mesh, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” recited in lines 2-8 of the claim will be interpreted as “receiving… a polygon mesh that includes a plurality vertices… subdividing the polygon mesh to generate a plurality sub-vertices [from the plurality of vertices]… determining a first normal vector of a first vertex [from the plurality of vertices] in the polygon mesh and a second normal vector of a second vertex [from the plurality of vertices] in the polygon mesh, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh”.
Claim 13 further recites the limitation “the plurality of sub-vertices located on the edge” in line 9 of the claim. Claim 13 recites “the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” in lines 7-8 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the plurality of sub-vertices located on the edge” recited in line 9 of the claim as there is no mention in the claim of locating “sub-vertices” on the claimed “edge”. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claims 14-19 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 13.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “generating… a polygon mesh… the polygon mesh includes a plurality vertices… the polygon mesh is subdivided to generate a plurality sub-vertices… a first normal vector of a first vertex in the polygon mesh is determined and a second normal vector of a second vertex in the polygon mesh is determined, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” in lines 2-7 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “a plurality sub-vertices” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to a plurality “sub-vertices” of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, or if the claimed “a plurality sub-vertices” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to a “sub-vertices” that are not related the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a first vertex in the polygon mesh” and “a second vertex in the polygon mesh” recited in lines 5-7 of the claim, respectively, encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “first vertex in the polygon mesh” and “second vertex in the polygon mesh” encompass embodiments that do not correspond to any of the claimed “plurality of vertices” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes the claimed “generating… a polygon mesh… the polygon mesh includes a plurality vertices… the polygon mesh is subdivided to generate a plurality sub-vertices… a first normal vector of a first vertex in the polygon mesh is determined and a second normal vector of a second vertex in the polygon mesh is determined, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” recited in lines 2-7 of the claim will be interpreted as “generating… a polygon mesh… the polygon mesh includes a plurality vertices… the polygon mesh is subdivided to generate a plurality sub-vertices [from the plurality of vertices]… a first normal vector of a first vertex [from the plurality of vertices] in the polygon mesh is determined and a second normal vector of a second vertex [from the plurality of vertices] in the polygon mesh is determined, the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh”.
Claim 20 further recites the limitation “the plurality of sub-vertices located on the edge” in line 8 of the claim. Claim 20 recites “the first vertex and the second vertex defining an edge in the polygon mesh” in lines 7-8 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the plurality of sub-vertices located on the edge” recited in line 8 of the claim as there is no mention in the claim of locating “sub-vertices” on the claimed “edge”. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claim 20 further recites the limitation “wherein a displacement between the moved sub-vertex and a reference vertex from the plurality of vertices” in lines 10-11 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a displacement” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a displacement” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a displacement” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding another “displacement” different from the claimed “a displacement” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Furthermore, the claim appears to be incomplete as there is no further recitation in the claim related to the claimed “displacement between the moved sub-vertex and a reference vertex from the plurality of vertices” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights