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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 Is acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected, Group II, as there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0044], “a 3D pipeline project, such as rendering of a 3D object” is suggested to read “a 3D pipeline project, such as a rendering of a 3D object”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “receiving, by a plugin computer program to a 3D software program, a request” is suggested to read “receiving, by a plugin computer program from a 3D software program, a request”.
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 7 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 7 recites “identifying, by the pipeline data management system, and Application Programming Interface (API) to the database; …”, this is unclear because it does not provide a clear scope defining what the applicant intends to convey. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner interprets “identifying, by the pipeline data management system, and Application Programming Interface (API) to the database;” as “identifying, by the pipeline data management system, an application programming interface (API) to provide the connection to the database;”, with the support of Fig. 3A step 325 and [0059] of the instant application. Further, Claim 7 recites “connecting, by the pipeline data management system and using the API, searching, by the pipeline data management system, the database …”, this is also unclear because it does not provide a clear scope defining what the applicant intends to convey. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner interprets “connecting, by the pipeline data management system and using the API, searching, by the pipeline data management system, the database for a target” as “connecting, using the API, the pipeline data management system to the database; searching, by the pipeline data management system, the database …”, with the support of Fig. 3A steps 325 and 330 and [0059-0060] in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “unable to send pdfs stored in mongo gridfs with python requests module to an API endpoint”, 2020, StackOverflow, hereinafter referenced as StackOverflow, in view of “Introduction To 3-D Modeling With Python Scripting In Blender”, 2021, PaperSpace, hereinafter referenced as PaperSpace.
Regarding Claim 1, StackOverflow discloses a method (StackOverflow: [pgs. 1-2], discloses a python script performing a process <a method>), comprising:
receiving, by a plugin computer program (StackOverflow: [pgs. 1-2], discloses receiving, by a python script <plugin computer program>, a request to upload a set of pdfs <project> to a database);
locating, by the plugin computer program, a (StackOverflow: [pgs. 1-2], discloses locating, by the python script, a directory <node tree> for the set of PDFs, where the root node is the PDF_ROOT_PATH, see snippet below);
PNG
media_image1.png
217
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
recursively collecting, by the plugin computer program, node information and link information from the pipeline node tree (StackOverflow: [pgs. 1-2], see above, discloses in a loop, walking, using os.walk <recursively collecting>, by the python script, the directory tree <node tree>, including the files <node information> and their relationships, i.e. subdirectories, <link information>);
sending, by the plugin computer program, a POST request with the collected node information and link information to a pipeline data management system (StackOverflow: [pgs. 1-2], discloses sending, with the python script, a POST request with the collected PDFs <node and link information> to a Django endpoint <data management system used for the python script, a pipeline>);
creating, by the pipeline data management system, an instance of a pipeline data model for the collected node information and link information (StackOverflow: [pgs. 1-3], disclose creating, using Django, a record <an instance> for the collected information/files from the directory’s recursive walk <an instance of a data model for the collected information which includes node information and link information by the python script, a pipeline>);
and saving, by the pipeline data management system, the instance to the database (StackOverflow: [pgs. 1-2], discloses saving, using the Django endpoint, saving the record <the instance> to the database).
StackOverflow fails to disclose
receiving, by a plugin computer program to a 3D software program, …
3D pipeline project
pipeline node tree
However, PaperSpace discloses
receiving, by a plugin computer program to a 3D software program, a request (PaperSpace: [pgs. 7-13], discloses receiving a request from a python script to Blender <a 3D software program> to save a rendering of a 3D object)
3D pipeline project (PaperSpace: [pgs. 7-13], discloses a script to save multiple renderings of a 3D object <each image being interpreted as a 3D pipeline project>)
pipeline node tree (PaperSpace: [pgs. 7-13], discloses saving the rendered .pngs of the 3D object to a file directory <a pipeline node tree>)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by StackOverflow by applying to a 3D pipeline project related to 3D software as taught by PaperSpace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to save rendered 3D objects in flexible schemas.
Regarding Claims 6, the combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace disclose the method of Claim 1. The combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace further disclose(s) wherein the 3D pipeline project comprises
a rendering of a 3D object (PaperSpace: [pgs. 9-10], discloses a rendering of a 3D object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by the combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace by rendering a 3D object as further taught by PaperSpace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification for a clear visualization of a 3-dimensional object.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PaperSpace and StackOverflow in view of Boothroyd et al. (US 20090309893 A1), hereinafter referenced as Boothroyd.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace disclose the method of Claims 1. The combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace fail to explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 2, however, Boothroyd disclose(s) wherein the plugin computer program further
collects general information for the 3D pipeline project comprising a pipeline name, a pipeline author, and a name of the 3D software program (Boothroyd: [0047-0054], discloses a file having metadata <collected general information> for a rendered image of a CAD file <3D pipeline project>, including a title <pipeline name>, an author <pipeline author>, and a file type being a CAD file <where CAD is a 3D software program>; see [0099] for an example of the metadata).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by StackOverflow and PaperSpace by collecting metadata as taught by Boothroyd. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to provide vital context for a file.
Regarding Claims 3, the combination of StackOverflow, PaperSpace, and Boothroyd disclose the method of Claim 2. The combination of StackOverflow, PaperSpace, and Boothroyd further disclose(s) wherein
the instance of the files (StackOverflow: [pgs. 1-3], discloses a record <an instance> for the collected information from the directory’s recursive walk)
(Boothroyd: [0047-0099], discloses an XML file of a CAD file <a pipeline data model> where the XML file comprises metadata <including the general information>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by StackOverflow, PaperSpace, and Boothroyd by saving metadata in an instance of the project as taught by Boothroyd. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to provide clear ownership of a project and attach software records.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over StackOverflow and PaperSpace in view of van Schalkwyk (US 20100321527 A1), hereinafter referenced as van Schalkwyk.
Regarding Claims 4, the combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace disclose the method of Claim 1. The combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace further disclose(s) wherein the instance of the pipeline data model comprises
an image of the 3D pipeline project, wherein the image is uploaded to a blog post (PaperSpace: [pgs. 9-10], has an image of one of the rendered objects <3D pipeline project>, wherein the image has been uploaded to the blog post).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by the combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace by uploading the 3D pipeline project to a web gallery as further taught by PaperSpace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a visual example of a rendered 3D object and build a professional portfolio or gain exposure online.
The combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace fail to explicitly disclose
wherein the image is uploaded to a web gallery
However, van Schalkwyk discloses
wherein the image is uploaded to a web gallery (van Schalkwyk: [0059], discloses images uploaded to a web gallery)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by the combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace by uploading the image to a web gallery as taught by van Schalkwyk. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to build a professional portfolio or gain exposure online in a virtual space that minimizes text clutter, improving visual focus.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over StackOverflow and PaperSpace in view of Wickramasinghe, “MongoDB Atlas: Setting Up & Using Managed MongoDB”, 2020, BMC, hereinafter referenced as BMC.
Regarding Claims 5, the combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace disclose the method of Claim 1. The combination of StackOverflow and PaperSpace do teach MongoDB, a NoQSQL database that can be cloud-based, however, the examples explicitly show a local host URI, which is not cloud-based, however, BMC disclose(s) wherein the database comprises
a cloud-based NoSQL database (BMC: [pg. 2], discloses MongoDB Atlas, a cloud-based NoSQL database).
PNG
media_image2.png
188
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by StackOverflow and PaperSpace by using a cloud-based NoSQL as taught by BMC. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification for scalability and flexibility.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Rendering with Blender tools on a website”, 2024, blenderartists.org, hereinafter referenced as blenderartists in view of Feldotto et al., “The Neurorobotics Platform Robot Designer: Modeling Morphologies for Embodied Learning Experiments”, 2022, frontiers, hereinafter referenced as Feldotto, and in further view of Schafer et al. (US 20240265193 A1), hereinafter referenced as Schafer.
Regarding Claim 7, blenderartists discloses a method (blenderartists: [pg. 1], discloses an idea of a process <a method>), comprising:
receiving, by a plugin computer program to a 3D software program and from a user, a request to download a target 3D pipeline project from a database (blenderartists: [pg. 1], discloses a python script <plugin computer program> to import meshes from to Blender, wherein the python script receives the request from the user, when the script is written, to the Blender <3D software program> to import meshes <at least one mesh, interpreted as a 3D pipeline project>; [pgs. 1 and 3], mention files could be imported from MongoDB Atlas, OneDrive, or Google Drive, all of which are databases);
submitting, by the plugin computer program, a request to retrieve the target 3D pipeline project from a pipeline data management system (blenderartists: [pgs. 1-3], discloses running <submitting> a python script a request to retrieve a mesh from a database using Express to funnel data back and forth <interpreted as a pipeline data management system>);
identifying, by the pipeline data management system, and Application Programming Interface (API) to the database; connecting, by the pipeline data management system and using the API (blenderartists: [pgs. 1-2], discloses setting up <identifying and connecting> an API with Express to funnel files back and forth between the database and locally <between the pipeline data management system and the database>);
pipeline data management system (blenderartists: [pgs. 1-2], discloses Express <interpreted as a pipeline data management system>)
target 3D pipeline project instance (blenderartists: [pgs. 1-2], discloses a retrieving a mesh from a database, where the mesh record present in the database is interpreted as the instance of the target 3D pipeline project)
target 3D pipeline project (blenderartists: [pgs. 1-2], discloses a retrieving a mesh from a database, where the mesh to be retrieved is the target 3D pipeline project)
blenderartists fails to disclose
locating, by the plugin computer program, an active pipeline workspace for a user;
searching, by the pipeline data management system, the database for a target 3D pipeline project instance for the target 3D pipeline project;
parsing, by the pipeline data management system, the target 3D pipeline project instance resulting in node information and node link information;
receiving, by the plugin computer program, the node information and node link information;
and recursively building, by the plugin computer program, the target 3D pipeline project using the node information and the node link information in the active pipeline workspace.
However, Feldotto discloses
locating, by the plugin computer program, an active pipeline workspace for a user (Feldotto: [4. Model Design Workflow, pg. 6], discloses a plugin <computer program> that can has provides multiple tabs <workspaces> for a user to actively work in <at least one active pipeline workspace for a user>);
receiving, by the plugin computer program, the node information and node link information (Feldotto: [10. Import and Export, pg. 8], discloses importing, using the plugin <receiving, by the plugin>, the SDF file of the model <joint and link information, interpreted as node and link>);
and recursively building, by the plugin computer program, the target 3D pipeline project using the node information and the node link information in the active pipeline workspace (Feldotto: [10. Import and Export, pg. 8], discloses recursively importing, by the plugin, the model using an SDF format <joint and link information, interpreted as node and link> where a parent is found then recursively importing all child links, the result is this is the imported objects are created <built> in the 3D scene <active workspace>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by blenderartists by locating an active workspace and importing a model as taught by Feldotto. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification for a faster workflow, saving time compared to creating models from scratch.
The combination of blenderartists and Feldotto fail to explicitly disclose
searching, by the pipeline data management system, the database for a target 3D pipeline project instance for the target 3D pipeline project;
parsing, by the pipeline data management system, the target 3D pipeline project instance resulting in node information and node link information;
However, Schafer discloses
searching, by the one or more documents (Schafer: [0079], discloses retrieving, by a system, a database for one or more document records <instances> of target documents);
parsing, by the (Schafer: [0079], discloses parsing, by a system, the retrieved documents resulting in a graph <node information and node link information>; see [Fig. 2] below for a graph that comprises node and link information);
PNG
media_image3.png
310
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by blenderartists and Feldotto by retrieving files from a database and parsing them to obtain a graph as taught by Schafer. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification for fast, semantic analysis and show clear links between different data.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer disclose the method of Claim 7. The combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer further disclose(s) wherein the database comprises
a cloud-based NoSQL database (blenderartists: [pg. 4], discloses MongoDB Atlas <a cloud-based NoSQL database>).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer in view of Boothroyd.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer disclose the method of Claim 7. The combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer fail to explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 8, however, Boothroyd disclose(s) wherein the target 3D pipeline project instance further comprises
general information for the target 3D pipeline project comprising a pipeline name, a pipeline author, and a name of the 3D software program (Boothroyd: [0047-0054], discloses a file having metadata <collected general information> for a rendered image of a CAD file <3D pipeline project>, including a title <pipeline name>, an author <pipeline author>, and a file type being a CAD file <where CAD is a 3D software program>; see [0099] for an example of the metadata).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer by collecting metadata as taught by Boothroyd. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to provide vital context for a file.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, Schafer, and Boothroyd in view of Rowoldt (US 20230222015 A1), hereinafter referenced as Rowoldt.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, Schafer, and Boothroyd disclose the method of Claim 8. The combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, Schafer, and Boothroyd fail to teach the limitations of Claim 9, however, Rowoldt disclose(s) wherein
wherein the pipeline data management system further parses general information from the target 3D pipeline project instance (Rowoldt: [0025-0028, 0035], discloses a shot sheet parser of an automatic animation system <pipeline data management system> parses metadata <general information> from a shot sheet, which is a created individual animation project or file built from an input <interpreted as a 3d pipeline project instance>, where the metadata includes a title and the author, the shot sheet parser further determines the animation program being used).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, Schafer, and Boothroyd by parsing the metadata of the instance as taught by Rowoldt. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification improve search and retrieval speeds by structuring the data.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer in view of PaperSpace, and in further view of van Schalkwyk.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer disclose the method of Claim 7. The combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer fail to explicitly disclose the limitation of Claim 10, however, PaperSpace disclose(s) wherein the target 3D pipeline project instance comprises
an image of the target 3D pipeline project, wherein the image is uploaded to a blog post. (PaperSpace: [pgs. 9-10], has an image of one of the rendered objects <3D pipeline project>, wherein the image has been uploaded to the blog post <interpreted as web gallery, because the blog post is a digital space on the internet displaying multiple images>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer by uploading the 3D pipeline project to a web gallery as taught by PaperSpace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a visual example of a rendered 3D object and build a professional portfolio or gain exposure online.
The combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer, and PaperSpace fail to explicitly disclose
wherein the image is uploaded to a web gallery
However, van Schalkwyk discloses
wherein the image is uploaded to a web gallery (van Schalkwyk: [0059], discloses images uploaded to a web gallery)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer, and PaperSpace by uploading the image to a web gallery as taught by van Schalkwyk. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to build a professional portfolio or gain exposure online in a virtual space that minimizes text clutter, improving visual focus.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer in view of PaperSpace.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer disclose the method of Claim 7. The combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer fail to explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 12, however, PaperSpace disclose(s) wherein the target 3D pipeline project comprises
a rendering of a 3D object (PaperSpace: [pgs. 9-10], discloses a rendering of a 3D object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method disclosed by the combination of blenderartists, Feldotto, and Schafer by rendering a 3D object as further taught by PaperSpace. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification for a clear visualization of a 3-dimensional object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Verge 3D”, 2024, Wikipedia discloses a workflow for 3D modelling.
“Batch Recursive Import”, 2023, Github discloses a method of recursively inputting multiple files in folders recursively.
Doboš et al., “3D Revision Control Framework”, 2012 discloses a NoSQL database and building scene graphs recursively using nodes and links.
“Importing 3D scenes – Godot scene importer”, Github, 2023 discloses a recursive function called at each node for importing a scene.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA OCHSNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9322. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 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, Devona Faulk can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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.
/I.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights