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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement”, refer to the claims in this Divisional Application. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation.
Claims 1-20 have been interpreted in light of Applicant’s written description’s FIGs. 48A-48G and 49 and paragraphs [00437]-[0438], [00476-[0477], note (“c-stack”) illustrated in FIG. 49 is a RAM. Claims 1-20 have been interpreted in light of MPEP 2111.05 Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material [R-07.2022], MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-10.2019] III. PRODUCT CLAIMS – NONFUNCTIONAL PRINTED MATTER DOES NOT DISTINGUISH CLAIMED PRODUCT FROM OTHERWISE IDENTICAL PRIOR ART PRODUCT, and MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024] as claiming printed matter. Regarding claims 1-20 the limitations after “non-transitory memory” are considered to be printed matter which printed matter does not distinguish the product non-transitory memory from prior non-transitory memory. A prior art rejection based on this determination follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lacey, US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0380777.
Lacey describes data defining primitives with vertex data comprising vertex position and displacement vector, refer to FIG. 8A and paragraphs [0111]-[0112], and describes non-transitory memory 105, 115, 1110 and 1206 storing the vertex data, refer to FIGs. 1A, 1B, 11 and 12 and paragraphs [0048], [0052], [0056] [0163], [0204]-[0205], and [0207]. The examiner notes the prior art of record is silent in the context of the claims with regard to:
claim 1 “a pointer to at least one displacement block.”; and
claim 11 “a displacement block encoding base anchor displacements and
a displacement value for each of a multiplicity of micro-vertices of a sub-triangle defined with respect to the first base triangle vertex position, the second base triangle vertex position and the third base triangle vertex position.”.
However, since the claims are claimed in printed matter claim format these limitations do not distinguish the product non-transitory memory from prior non-transitory memory.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cohen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0078655, describes defining primitives with vertex position and displacement vector, refer to paragraphs [0053]-[0057], [0060], and [0065].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7761. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
JEFFERY A. BRIER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights