SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN (CAD) EXCHANGE

Application No. 19/070,258

• Filed: Mar 04, 2025
• Examiner: HAO, YI
• Art Unit: 2187
• Tech Center: 2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
• Assignee: Ntopology Inc.
• OA Round: 2 (Final)

Office Action

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 .

Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/10/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted
on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of co-pending application 17/689,813 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.

Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 4, 11 and 18 have been
amended, no claim is canceled or added. Thus claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. However, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made based on the newly amended limitations.

Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
…
Here, the streamlined eligibility analysis is appropriate and satisfied because the claims are directed to a clear improvement in an inherently computer-related technology, as in Enfish. Specifically, the claims are directed to improvement(s) in computer aided design (CAD) exchange. As explained in the Background section of Applicant's originally filed specification, it is generally known that "a CAD design can represent a mechanical design as one or more CAD bodies," but "[e]xchanging these bodies between different systems has traditionally challenged CAD" as a field. Specification, paragraph [0003]. "For example, to generate a physical prototype of [an] item, or to manufacture the item, the corresponding CAD body/bodies can be exchanged with a 3-D printer or computer numerical control (CNC) machine. .. . How CAD bodies are exchanged is an important process for accurate building of parts, particularly for downstream applications along the design to manufacturing process. The goal is to have a compatible CAD file format for downstream use in other programs." Paragraph [0004]. "Unfortunately, due to nuanced differences in geometry representations," the transfer of the geometry from one system to another "is inherently unreliable." Paragraph [0005]. Furthermore, "due to differences in the semantics of the programs that produce the geometry output, it is not possible to reliably transfer the various steps used to generate a given CAD body, according to conventional approaches." Id. Indeed, conventional attempts to solve this technological problem suffer a variety of drawbacks tied to computer-based technological issues, such as the differences in computer operations or commands between different systems. Paragraphs [0006]-[0007].
Taking independent claim 1 as an example, the claimed method is directed to solving these known technical problems in CAD technology, and thereby improving a computer-related technology. Claim 1 recites, in part:
determining, by a source computing system, one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body;
expressing, by the source computing system, the implicit
equations/functions as code;
exchanging the code between the source computing system and a target system; and
displaying, based on the code, the CAD body at the target system,
wherein a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system.
Accordingly, in the method of claim 1, the source computing system determines one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body and expresses them as code. The code is exchanged between the source computing system and a target system, and the CAD body is displayed at the target system. The claimed method thus enables the CAD exchange to be accomplished with a smaller data transfer than in conventional methods, increases precision by avoiding the need for making approximations, enables easy consumption and use at the target system by using code as the exchange medium rather than "an unwieldly and/or poorly structured data format," and "allow[s] for increased editability at a target [system], including allowing for replayability and parametric editing with respect to the exchanged CAD body (e.g., allowing for different parameter values to be specified for the CAD body, for instance changing thicknesses or diameters in the CAD body)." Paragraph [0009]. See also paragraphs [0055]-[0056], illustrating certain advantages with reference to specific examples.
Additionally, in the method of claim 1, a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system. Accordingly, the method of claim 1 can efficiently make use of this portion of code both for display purposes at the source system and for the exchange of the CAD body between the source and target systems. See, e.g., paragraph [0033].
Notably, the aforementioned benefits are not improvements to a mental process, mathematical concept, or other abstract idea. Instead, the benefits - e.g., reduced data transfer, increased editability at the target system, increased precision, avoidance of data structures that are difficult for the target system to use, using a same portion of code at both the target and source systems - are plainly computer-related improvements to a computer-related technology. For at least this reason, the streamlined patent eligibility analysis is appropriate and is satisfied.
Importantly, this conclusion is not undermined by the extent to which the benefits are achieved via software rather than hardware. This point was emphasized by the Appeals Review Panel of the PTAB in a September 26, 2025, decision reversing a § 101 rejection introduced as a new ground of rejection by PTAB in a patent application appeal ("ARP decision").1 The ARP addressed software-based patentable improvements as follows:
Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements. In particular, Enfish recognized that "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determination should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an
abstract idea." Id. at 1336 (emphasis added).

Here, as in Enfish, the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality rather than to an abstract idea, and the eligibility determination turns on this fact. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that the streamlined analysis is appropriate and satisfied as to claim 1, and for similar reasons, also as to independent claims 8 and 15. All pending claims therefore comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101 and a full analysis under the two-part Subject Matter Eligibility Test is not required.

(see Response filed 11/10/2025 [pages 8-11]).

The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant's argument that the streamlined eligibility analysis is appropriate and satisfied because the claims are directed to a clear improvement in an inherently computer-related technology, as in Enfish.
As explained in MPEP § 2106.06, “a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III) should be conducted to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or recites significantly more than the judicial exception.” In this case, the claims recite limitation such as determining, …, one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body; expressing, …, the implicit equations/functions as code. Under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification can be considered as mental process and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships and equation). The additional limitations mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity data gathering (i.e., the target system receives code from source system, the GPU also receives code) and data output (i.e., displaying CAD bodies at source and target system) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, eligibility is not self-evident and the streamlined path is not applicable.
The Enfish decision does not apply to the instant claims. In Enfish, the claimed invention improved the computer’s internal data operation through a specific self-referential table structure (claims to a self-referential table for a computer database were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not directed to an abstract idea). However, the instant claims merely use conventional computing components to perform data (code) transmission and representation steps for CAD geometry. The alleged improvements described in the specification related to the abstract idea itself and are not reflected in any additional limitation (e.g., providing/exchanging …; displaying …) that could meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Therefore, the additional limitation does not show a specific improvement to computer functionality or to another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the examiner properly applied the full eligibility analysis to determine whether the claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite additional elements amounting to significantly more than the exception.

With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
First, regarding mathematical concepts, recent guidance from the Office advises that "Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." See USPTO Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner of Patents, entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101," August 4, 2025 (hereinafter "August 2025 Memorandum"). The August 2025 Memorandum explains that even though a claim may "involve or rely upon mathematical concepts," it does not recite a mathematical concept in the sense of Prong 1 unless it actually "set[s] forth or describe[s] any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols." August 2025 Memorandum, page 3. For example, the August 2025 Memorandum instructs that a claim reciting "training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set" does not recite a judicial exception, but a claim reciting "training, by the computer, the ANN based on the input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm" does recite mathematical concepts for the sole reason that it "refer[s] to the mathematical calculations by name, i.e., a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm." Id.
Applying the instruction of the August 2025 Memorandum, even if the present independent claims may involve or rely on mathematical concepts such as implicit equations/functions, they do not recite any mathematical concept just by virtue of containing the phrase "implicit equations/functions." The Office action itself characterizes the claims as simply perhaps "represent[ing]" mathematical concepts, which Applicant believes reflects the fact that the claims involve mathematical concepts rather than reciting them. For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not recite a mathematical concept in the sense of Prong 1.
Second, regarding mental processes, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite any mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind. The Office action asserts that the following portions of claim 1 are mental processes: "determining . .. one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body" and "expressing . .. the implicit equations/functions as code." Applicant submits that neither of these features is a mental process within the meaning of Prong 1. Determining one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body is not a mental process because it cannot practically be performed in the human mind. This is analogous to "a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets," which the MPEP explains is not an abstract idea because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets." MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), quoting SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Expressing the implicit equations/functions as code is also not a mental process because it too cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Although in some cases "[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer," MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), this situation generally arises only when the claim recites a mental process and generically links it to a computer environment, or incidentally uses a computer as a tool. See id., providing examples such as a system of computerizing actions "that humans have performed for hundreds of years." In contrast, expressing implicit equations/functions as code is an inherently computer-based step that produces an inherently computer-based output that exists outside the human mind (namely, code that expresses the implicit equations/functions).
Indeed, it is difficult to understand exactly what mental process could achieve this result. The Office action appears to state that the above-mentioned features amount to a mental process because a person could purportedly "convert the implicit function to code" in their mind, or with the aid of pen and paper. Office action, page 20. Applicant respectfully submits that this is an unreasonable interpretation of the case law and USPTO guidance regarding mental processes. As the Federal Circuit held in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. - the case cited by the Office action in support of this part of the rejection - a claim recites "unpatentable mental processes" if the claim's method steps themselves can all actually be performed in the human mind, "or by a human using a pen and paper." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The CyberSource court was referring to a claim that recited "obtaining information about other transactions. . .", "constructing a map of credit card numbers based up on the other transactions," and "utilizing the map of credit card numbers to determine if the credit card transaction is valid." CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370. The court's point was that a human being could use their mind (possibly aided by pen and paper) to obtain the information, construct the map, and assess validity of the transaction based on the map.
In contrast to CyberSource, the present Office action appears to assert that the claims are directed to a mental process because a person could attempt to envision (or write by hand) software code that would carry out aspects of the claimed method. By this reasoning, all software elements of a claim would always amount to mental processes, because a human being could envision or mock up on paper the code that would implement those elements. However, as described above, the USPTO has recently cautioned that in the ARP decision that "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can." ARP decision, citing Enfish. Similarly, the August 2025 Memorandum instructs that a claim reciting "training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set" does not recite a judicial exception, despite the fact that a person could write out on paper the code that would accomplish this task. Accordingly, the possibility that a person could envision code, or sketch it out on paper, cannot legally establish that the claim features in question are mental processes. This is analogous to saying that a claim reciting a purely mechanical device is directed to a mental process just because a person could imagine or draw blueprints for the device. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the features identified by the Office action are not mental processes, and that the claim does not recite a mental process.
Accordingly, the pending claims do not recite any limitation that falls within one of the three groupings considered to be "abstract idea" subject matter, and therefore the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Thus, even if one proceeded with the full eligibility analysis despite it being unnecessary in this case, one should find at Step 2A, Prong 1 of the full analysis that the claims are patent eligible.

(see Response filed 11/10/2025 [pages 11-15]).

The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant's argument that the claims merely “involve” mathematical concepts rather than “recite” them.
As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations … A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include:
i. a relationship between reaction rate and temperature, which relationship can be expressed in the form of a formula called the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr; 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981).
The instant claims recite such mathematical subject matter.
Claim 1 explicitly requires:
“determining … one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body,” and
“expressing … the implicit equation/functions as code.”
The specification defines the “implicit function” as one or more equations describing geometric relationship of the CAD body ([0031], [0035], Fig.4). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, determining and expressing the “implicit equation/function” requires forming and representing equations defining spatial geometry. These are mathematical relationships and equations as described in the 2019 PEG.
The Diehr example illustrates the type of mathematical relationship that counts have identified as a mathematical concept (e.g., a relationship between reaction rate and temperature expressible as a formular). Likewise, the instant claim recites equations describing relationships between CAD-body geometry and the correspond code.
Further, the example in the August 2025 Memorandum recited by applicant is not persuasive. In particular, claim 1 recites “determining one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body” and “expressing the implicit equations/functions as code.” As described in the speciation, such implicit equations/function corresponds to mathematical relationship that define geometry, including implicitly functions and singed distance functions. Thus, unlike the Memorandum’s example of “training the neural network in a first stage using a first training set,” which does not identify any mathematical relationship, formular/equation, or calculations, claim 1 explicitly requires the generation and use of mathematical equations/functions themselves.
Therefore, the limitation is directed to a mathematical concept, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).

Furthermore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant's argument that the claims do not recite any mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, claim 1 recites observing and evaluating a CAD model feature to determining one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body and expressing the equations/functions as code. The claim does not specify the complexity of the implicit equation/function, or any defined coding format. When the claim recites at high level conceptual operations on geometric information without limiting how they must be performed, the steps reasonably amount to evaluating information and rewriting the information into a different form, which can be performed mentally or by using pencil and paper. This is consistent with the analysis in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), which explains that a method step constitutes a mental process when it can be performed in human mind or with pen and paper, even if the claim nominally recites a computer. Therefore, the limitations reasonably fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) case recited by applicant is not persuasive. In SRI, the claims required specific computer network monitoring operations that continuously analyzed data packets to detect suspicious actively. These steps necessarily involved active machine-based processing that cannot be performed mentally. In contrast, the instant claims do not recite real-time monitoring or continuous computer operation. They merely describe evaluating geometric relationships and expressing them as code without requiring any particular computer technique. There steps can be performed mentally when the claim does not restrict how they must be implemented.
Applicant also cites the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision (citing Enfish) and August 2025 Memorandum example to argue that the instant claims do not recite judicial exception. However, The ARP decision (citing Enfish) and the August 2025 Memorandum example are not applicable to the instant claims. In the APR decision (citing Enfish) address whether claimed software functionality (additional limitation) constitutes an improvement to computer technology under STEP 2A, Prong Two, and does not stand for the proposition that claim fails to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One. Further, the August 2025 Memorandum example, “training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set,” was not considered to recite a mathematical concept because the training operation does not itself require performing mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations. By contrast, the instant claims recite at high level includes evaluating and rewriting geometric information as code without preclude the step can be performed by human mind, and clearly recites “implicitly equation/function” as mathematical relationship and equations to represent CAD geometry. Therefore, unlike the ARP decision and the August 2025 Memorandum example, the limitation is direct to a “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and the claims 1, 8, 15 are direct to judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1.

With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
…
Applicant respectfully submits that one or more additional features are recited in the claims to apply, rely on, and/or use the purported abstract idea, such that each claim as a whole integrates any such abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, even if one interprets "determining ... one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body" and "expressing . .. the implicit equations/functions as code" to be abstract ideas, though Applicant maintains that they are not, claim 1 still recites the following "additional" elements:
exchanging the code between the source computing system and a target system; and
displaying, based on the code, the CAD body at the target system,
wherein a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system.

As explained in the MPEP at 2106.04(d)(1), "[o]ne way to demonstrate such integration [into a practical application] is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. .. . Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not 'directed to' the recited judicial exception." To evaluate this consideration, the MPEP instructs that "first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art." Id. "Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., 'thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel')."Id. Furthermore, "[w]hen performing this evaluation, examiners should be 'careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims." MPEP at 2106.05(a), citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Following the MPEP's instruction, an evaluation of the specification shows that the disclosure does provide sufficient details for a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed subject matter provides an improvement to computer technology. As explained above with reference to the streamlined analysis, the claimed method of CAD exchange provides several improvements over known methods, such as enabling the exchange to be accomplished with a smaller data transfer, increasing precision by avoiding the need for making approximations, enabling easy consumption and use at the target system by using code as the exchange medium rather than "an unwieldly and/or poorly structured data format," and "allow[ing] for increased editability at a target [system], including allowing for replayability and parametric editing with respect to the exchanged CAD body (e.g., allowing for different parameter values to be specified for the CAD body, for instance changing thicknesses or diameters in the CAD body)." Paragraph [0009]. The specification explicitly sets forth these improvements, and the first step of the MPEP's analysis is therefore satisfied.
Next, an evaluation of the claims shows that the claims do reflect one or more of the improvements disclosed in the specification. Continuing to take claim 1 as an example, claim 1 recites determining one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body, expressing the implicit equations/functions as code, and exchanging the code between the source computing system and a target system. As clearly explained in the specification, and as would be readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, these features give rise to most or all of the improvements provided by the claimed method of CAD exchange. For example, exchanging code rather than meshes, voxels, or boundary representations provides the advantages of accomplishing CAD exchange with a smaller amount of data than is conventional. Paragraph [0009]. Paragraphs [0055]- [0056] further explain that accomplishing the CAD exchange by exchanging code that expresses the implicit equations/functions gives rise to the advantages of precision and allowing for parametric editing at the target system, which are improvements over known methods.
Additionally, claim 1 recites that a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system. The specification explains that this arrangement improves efficiency of the computer technology by allowing this portion of code to be used both for display purposes at the source system and for the exchange of the CAD body between the source and target systems. See, e.g., paragraph [0033].

Although certain features mentioned above (determining one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body, expressing the implicit equations/functions as code, and exchanging the code between the source computing system and a target system) include those identified by the Office action as an abstract idea, this identification is immaterial for this part of the MPEP's analysis, because "the improvement [to the computer and/or technology] can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.... Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field." MPEP at 2106.05(a), emphasis added.
The Office action asserts that certain features mentioned above (namely, exchanging the code, displaying the CAD body, and wherein a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system) are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Insignificant extra-solution activities are claim elements that are only "nominally or tangentially related to the invention," or that are required by "all uses of the recited judicial exception." MPEP at 2106.05(g). There is no apparent reason to believe that any of the features identified in the Office action are only tangentially related to the claimed method of CAD exchange, or would be required any time someone determined an implicit equation/function.
Indeed, the Office action does not actually provide any reasoning to the contrary, although the MPEP instructs that such reasoning should accompany a § 101 rejection involving alleged extra-solution activity. Id. To illustrate this instruction, the MPEP explains that "[f]or example, an examiner could explain that adding a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space (a mathematical relationship) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area." Id., emphasis added. Here, no such explanation is provided, and Applicant believes no such explanation could plausibly be articulated, because the features in question are not insignificant and are not extra-solution. Thus, these features must be considered at the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, and they should be found to integrate any purported abstract idea into the practical application of exchanging a CAD body between a source system and a target system, thus enabling display of the CAD body at the target system.
Accordingly, though Applicant believes that claim 1 (and for similar reasons, all independent claims) does not recite any abstract idea, the Prong 2 analysis still shows that the claim is not "directed to" any such abstract idea, because the claim as a whole integrates any such idea into a practical application. This is true at least because the specification describes the relevant subject matter such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the subject matter provides improvement(s) to a computer and/or technology, and the claims include the components or steps of the invention(s) that provide the improvement(s). The full eligibility analysis must therefore end at Step 2A, Prong 2 with the conclusion that the claims are eligible for patenting, and that no §101 rejection is proper. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under §101 be withdrawn.

(see Response filed 11/10/2025 [pages 15-19]).

The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that one or more additional features are recited in the claims to apply, rely on, and/or use the purported abstract idea, such that each claim as a whole integrates any such abstract idea into a practical application.
As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II), “The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).” However, the alleged improvements identified by applicant arise from the abstract representation steps of determining … and expressing …, which are part of the abstract idea itself. Improvements within the abstract idea cannot supply integration under Step 2A prong 2. Thus, the relevant additional limitations are the generic computer components, exchanging the code between source computing system and target system and displaying, based on the code, the CAD body at the target system, wherein a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system. These limitations merely represent data transmission and data output that occur after the abstract processing is complete. The limitations are performed by conventional computers and are identified in MPEP § 2106.05 (f) and (g) with explains and examples of Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception and Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that do not meaningfully limit a judicial exception. Additionally, as explained in MPEP § 2106.05 (f): (2) … Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.

Furthermore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that the steps of exchanging the code, displaying the CAD body, and wherein a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system are not insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps merely send the result of the abstract processing and present it for viewing. The claim does not specify any technical detail about how the data is transmitted, stored, or displayed that would meaningfully limit the abstract operations. In MPEP § 2106.05(g), As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula ...

Furthermore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that the Office failed to explain why the steps of exchanging a CAD body between a source system and a target system, thus enabling display of the CAD body at the target system are insignificant extra-solution activities. The prior Office Action already provided the required explanation consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(g). Specifically, the action identified the exchanging step (transmitting code from one system to another, and providing code to GPU of source system) as data gathering, and the displaying step (showing the CAD body based on the code) as data output. Both actions merely transmit or display the results of the abstract processing and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore the Office has satisfied the explanatory requirement by identifying the nature of these activities and indicating that they do not meaningful limit the claim. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.

Although Applicant did not present arguments regarding Step 2B, the prior Office action already addressed this step to complete the patent subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . As previously Office action explained, the claims do not include any additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The identified additional limitation (e.g., transmitting code between systems and displaying the CAD body) are generic computer functions that merely perform generic computer functions of executing, transmitting, and displaying information. These operations represent well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer functions, as explained in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and confirmed by the courts in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Therefore, the claims, when is considered as a whole, do not recite additional limitation elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mathematical concepts and mental processes) are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.

Applicant's arguments filed under “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on
08/29/2025, the applicant' s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
…
A proper obviousness determination requires the examiner to make "a searching comparison of the claimed invention - including all its limitations - with the teaching of the prior art." In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Thus, "obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim." CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, "there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(emphasis added). See In re Wada and Murphy, BPAI Appeal No. 2007-3733 (January 14, 2008). In the present case, the cited references, whether taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the following:
…
These features are not taught or suggested by the cited references, whether taken individually or in combination. First, no reference teaches or suggests displaying the CAD body at the target system based on the exchanged code. As acknowledged by the Office action, Gielis and Ameta fail to teach or suggest this feature. The Office action asserts that Massaro remedies this deficiency, and Applicant respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Massaro describes methods for designing a HVAC system (or more generally, "any system that has components designed to particular specifications"). Massaro, paragraph [0042]. In Massaro's method, the system is designed using a first CAD software application. Id. The first application exports geometrical information (e.g., inlet and outlet coordinates, pipe fitting orientations) and property values (e.g., airflow direction, pressure class, material type) to a text file, or other suitable data file. Paragraphs [0043]-[0045]. Then the information stored in the text file is imported into a second CAD application. Paragraph [0047]. The second application uses the stored information to identify standard HVAC components (e.g., duct lengths, connectors, gauges, etc.) that "map to" the geometric and property information specified in the data file for the designed HVAC system. Paragraph [0049]. Finally, based on the identified standard HVAC components, the second system generates a three-dimensional representation of the "intended system" that resembles the system designed on the first software application, but is "constructed of standard fittings" identified as suitable substitutes by the second software application. [0051]. Alternatively, the second system may construct a blueprint or parts list instead of the three-dimensional representation. Paragraphs [0053]-[0055].
Accordingly, Massaro fails to teach or suggest displaying a CAD body at a second system based on exchanged code, much less based on exchanged code related to implicit equations/functions. Instead, Massaro displays a three-dimensional representation assembled from standard HVAC fittings that is intended as a standardized version of an HVAC system designed in a different CAD application. Massaro therefore would not have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it might be possible or beneficial to modify Gielis or Ameta to display a CAD body at a target system based on code exchanged between the target and a source system. The concept of displaying a CAD body is absent from Massaro.
Furthermore, the entire point of Massaro's invention is to identify and present a set of suitable standard fittings instead of the original CAD body. Displaying the CAD body at the target system would defeat the purpose of Massaro's invention and effectively change its principle of operation. However, "[i]f a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." MPEP at 2143.01(V), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984). And "[i]f the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious." MPEP at 2143.01(VI), citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). For at least these additional reasons, Massaro cannot remedy the deficiencies of Gielis and Ameta, and claim 1 is non-obvious for at least this reason. Independent claim 8 is non-obvious for similar reasons.
Furthermore, no art of record teaches or suggests a portion of the code provided to the target system also being provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system. The Office action acknowledges that Gielis, Ameta, and Massaro fail to teach or suggest this feature, but suggests that Hanniel does so. Applicant respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Hanniel describes ray-casting methods for rendering surfaces of CAD bodies on a graphics processing unit (GPU). The Office action suggests that modifying its proposed combination of Gielis/Ameta/Massaro such that the source system and target system use at least some of the same code for display purposes would have been obvious in view of Hanniel for the following two reasons: 1) it would "improve efficiency by avoiding tessellation while supporting high-quality rendering using compact code at both the source and the target system" and 2) "it also would enable interoperability across CAD platform." However, neither of these reasons is adequate to sustain the obviousness rejection. The first reason (to obtain the advantage of "avoiding tessellation while supporting high-quality rendering") relates to advantages that Hanniel attributes specifically to Hanniel's own specific ray-casting techniques rather than to the mere use of a GPU. See, e.g., paragraph [0083]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not have expected to obtain these advantages simply by using a GPU.
The Office action's second reason for the proposed modification (to "enable interoperability across CAD platform") has no basis in Hanniel at all, because Hanniel does not actually teach or suggest a portion of code that is both provided to the target system and also provided to a GPU of the source system. Additionally, the logic behind this second reason is backwards, because simply providing a portion of the code to both systems would not "ensure" that both systems can use it. On the contrary, as explained at length in Applicant's specification, exchanging CAD bodies between two computing systems is a notoriously difficult technical task, and as such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have believed that simply providing the same code to two systems would achieve the benefit of interoperability. Applicant's claimed method provides a technical solution to this known problem. Hanniel's teachings, on the other hand, do not appear to even contemplate this problem, much less to suggest a solution. For at least these reasons, Hanniel's teachings of a ray-casting method for rendering CAD surfaces on a GPU would not have taught or suggested that it would be possible or advantageous to modify the proposed combination of Gielis/Ameta/Massaro such that a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system.
Accordingly, none of the cited art teaches or suggests the claimed feature that a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system. Independent claim 1, and also independent claims 8 and 15, are patentable over the art of record for at least this reason, as are all dependent claims. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the present rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and the issuance of a Notice of Allowance.

(see Response filed 11/10/2025 [pages 19-23]).

First, in response to applicant's argument that Massaro fails to teach or suggest displaying a CAD body at a second system based on exchanged code, much less based on exchanged code related to implicit equations/functions and Displaying the CAD body at the target system would defeat the purpose of Massaro's invention and effectively change its principle of operation, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the prior Office Action, Gielis is cited for teaching expressing an implicit function representing a CAD body as code, for example in XML, SVG, or other structured file formats (see Gielis, [0147] and [0215]). Gielis further indicates that such code can be stored in a file and accessed or shared ([0202] and [0216]), thereby inherently supporting use of the same file on a different computing system to visualize or manipulate the represented geometry.
The Office Action cited Massaro solely to confirm that, once geometric or design information is stored in a file, it was known in the art that such a file could be transferred to another CAD system and used to generate a corresponding visual model. Massaro describes exporting design information from one CAD application and importing that information into another CAD environment, where the second system generates and displays a representation of the design. While Massaro does not state that the file contains “code,” it explicitly shows that a file containing geometric data can be imported and displayed at a second system, which consistent with the concept of displaying a CAD body at a target system based on data (or code) representing the geometry. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, the claim phrase “displaying, based on the code, the CAD body at the target system” does not require the code itself to be directly transmitted by the target system or explicitly identified as a “code file.” The claim simply requires that the display at the target system be generated using information that corresponds to code representing the CAD body. Gielis and Ameta provides the determined implicit equations/functions for a CAD body representation as code; Massaro teaches that such data can be transferred and used to display a geometry at another system. The combination therefore reasonably teaches the recited limitation.
Furthermore, applicant’s argument about principle of operation and unsatisfactory modification are not persuasive. The rejection does not change how Massaro works or the purpose of Massaro’s system. The combination only relies on Massaro’s separate teaching that related geometry data can be sent to another system and displayed. Using this teaching to show that displaying geometry at a different system was known in the art, and relying on that teaching does not change Massaro’s operation.

Second, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Gielis is cited for teaching expressing an implicit function representing a CAD body as code, for example in XML, SVG, or other structured file formats (see Gielis, [0147] and [0215]). Gielis further indicates that such code can be stored in a file and accessed or shared ([0202] and [0216]), thereby inherently supporting use of the same file on a same and different computing system to visualize or manipulate the represented geometry.
Hanniel is cited for teaching providing encode CAD geometry to a graphics processing unit for rendering and display. Specifically, Hanniel teaches encoding CAD surface representations into GPU consumable constructs, such as texture constructs, and transmitting the constructs to the GPU, where further processing renders the CAD body on a display (See Hanniel [0014], [0023]-[0024] and [0056]).
Accordingly, Hanniel teaches that encode geometric data, provided as code, is supplied to the GPU of a computing system to generate a visual representation of a CAD body at the system. When considered together, Gielis and Hanniel teach that encoded CAD geometry (expressed as code and store in a file) can be reused and provided both to another computing system and to a GPU of the source computing system for rendering. In particular, Gielis teaches the portability and reuse of encoded CAD geometry across systems, while Hanniel teaches supplying encoded CAD geometry to a GPU for local display. Therefore, the combined teachings reasonably cover the limitation of “providing a portion of the code to a target system and also providing the same or corresponding portion of the encoded geometry to the GPU of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system, as recited in the claim.
Applicant argues that Hanniel’s teachings are limited to Hanniel’s specific ray-casting method and do not provide a motivation to modify the applied CAD exchange references so that a portion of the encoded geometry provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system. However, applicant’s argument improperly narrows Hanniel’s teachings to its specific rendering optimizations, whereas Hanniel also teaches supplying encoded CAD geometry to a graphics processing unit for rendering and display. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Gielis, Ameta, Massaro, and Hanniel provide a motivation to reuse encoded CAD geometry both for exchange between computing systems and for rendering via a graphics processing unit at the source computing system.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.

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 4, 11 and 18 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 4 recites “the portion of the code provided to the graphics processing unit of the source computing system comprises code the source system is configured to generate for display purposes, independently of exchanging…” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claimed limitation refers to a subset of the code itself, or a manner in which the code is generated, or a configuration of the source computing system, or some other relationship between the code and the source computing system. For the purpose of substantive examination only, and without conceding definiteness, the examiner interprets the claimed limitation as “the portion of the code provided to the graphics processing unit of the source computing system comprises code generated by the source system for display purposes, wherein the portion of the code is provided to the graphics processing unit independently of exchanging the code between the source computing system and the target system.

Claims 11 and 18 recite the limitation “comprises code the source system is configured to generate independently of providing the code to the target computing system” and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.

Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-7 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of processes;
Yes, Claims 8-14 are directed to system and fall within the statutory category of machines;
Yes, Claims 15-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and fall within the statutory category of manufactures;

In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.

Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “determining, …, one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body; expressing, …, the implicit equations/functions as code;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person, for example, is capable of observing and evaluating CAD entities to define implicit function based on the observed CAD entities, and to convert the implicit function to code (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
It also can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0031], “an implicit equation/function can be the signed distance function (SDF) of a mesh of a given one of the CAD body/bodies.” [0035], “With reference to Fig. 4, implicits can describe shapes in terms of equations/functions …, the same circle can be described in an implicit fashion 403, such as through one or more equations which can be expressed as the code of 403. Describing shapes in an implicit fashion advantageously yields functions/equations which can take varying inputs (e.g., spatially varying inputs).”

If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under
Prong I step 2A.

Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the
same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.

Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.

Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 8 and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - " A system for computer aided design (CAD) exchange comprising: a source computing system including at least one source computing system processor; a target computing system including at least one target computing system processor; a source computing system memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one source computing system processor, cause the source computing system to perform … and a target computing system memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one target computing system processor, …” and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for computer aided design (CAD) exchange including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a source computing system, cause the source computing system to perform” which are adding the words, “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.

Further, the following additional element – “exchanging the code between the source computing system and a target system; and displaying, based on the code, the CAD body at the target system, wherein a portion of the code provided to the target system is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system.” and “providing a portion of the code to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system, and displaying the CAD body on the source computing system;” and “cause the target computing system to display, based on the code, the one or more CAD bodies at the target computing system.” and “ providing a portion of the code to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system; and displaying the CAD body with the source computing system.” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., the target system receives code at the target system, the GPU also receives code) and data output (i.e., displaying CAD bodies) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).

Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.

After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 8 and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.

Step 2B: Claims 1, 8 and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Further, The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); … ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; …

Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 8 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 8 and 15.

Claim 2 recites “one or more external function features/constituents, and wherein the code comprises one or more calls to corresponding external functions.”

This merely further defines CAD body including external function features, and code comprises calls to external functions; therefore, it is merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generic calls to external function for CAD bodies at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception or significant more- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Claim 3 recites “providing, by the source computing system to the target system, a backup texture for the CAD body.”

This merely specifies providing backup texture to the target system; therefore, it merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., receiving backup texture at the target system) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Claim 4 recites “The computer-implemented method for CAD exchange of claim 1, wherein the portion of the code provided to the graphics processing unit of the source computing system comprises code the source system is configured to generate for display purposes, independently of exchanging the code between the source computing system and the target system.”

This merely specifies code is generated and provided to a graphics processing unit for display purpose, independently of exchanging code between the source computing system and the target computing system; therefore, it is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., receiving generated code at the GPU as a function separate from exchanging code) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Claim 5 recites “the determination of the one or more implicit equations/functions includes determination of at least one signed distance function (SDF).”

This merely specifies determination of singed distance function for one or more CAD bodies; therefore, it is mere an extension of mental process (e.g., determining of SDF) and mathematical concepts (i.e., SDF). Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Claim 6 recites “the code accepts varying inputs, and wherein the varying inputs allow for one or more of parametric edits and manufacturing process correction at the target system.”

This merely specifies code allows inputs associated with parametric edits and manufacturing process correction at the target system or source system; therefore, it merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., inputs, edits and correction) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generic edits and correction at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception or significant more- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Claim 7 recites “the portion of the code provided to the graphics processing unit of the source computing system is OpenGL Shading Language (GLSL) code.”

This merely further defined code including the GPU code is OpenGL Shading Language (GLSL) code; therefore, it is mere Field of Use and Technological Environment (i.e., GLSL) – amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP §2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Claims 9-14 and 16-20 recite substantially the same elements as claims 2-7, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.

Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gielis US 20050140678 in view of Ameta US 20240135053 and Massaro US 20160034605 A1 and Hanniel US 20120182297 A1.

Claim 1, Gielis teaches A computer-implemented method for computer aided design (CAD) exchange ([0200] - [0216]; [0209] “to export a shape into an external file format, … , since a common type of information is represented: e.g., SUPERSHAPES, a common file format is used to represent this information. Among other things, the use of a common file format can have some notable advantages in this context, such as:” [0210] “enabling the exchange of information between products … [0213], “enabling all products to support a same external file format.”); [0216], “… information regarding the common file formats are into a GENICAP Class Library (GCL), such that all products can use the common methods for importing and exporting.”; [0142], “…a SUPERFORMULA-based modeller (such as, e.g., a 2-D and/or 3-D modeller) can advantageously be used in a variety of applications, ranging from CAD/CAM…”) comprising:
determining, by a source computing system, one or more implicit equations/functions for a CAD body ([0086], “…computer system…”; [0142]-[0147]; [0145] “…Since SUPERFORMULA 3D shapes can be expressed as implicit functions all of the above and other operations can be performed with SUPERSHAPES.”; [0147] “As the SUPERFORMULA allows for both parametric expression and implicit function, the advantages of both, namely enumeration and classification of points, can be combined. This variety of possible operations and basic representations makes the SUPERFORMULA one of the most powerful shape representations, and certainly, a very uniform representation too.”; [0142], “…a SUPERFORMULA-based modeller (such as, e.g., a 2-D and/or 3-D modeller) can advantageously be used in a variety of applications, ranging from CAD/CAM…”)
expressing, by the source computing system, the implicit equations/functions as code ([0215] “the information (Note: e.g., SUPERSHAPE) can be coded using defined file standards, such as, e.g., XML. Among other things, SUPERSHAPE files can be represented as XML documents and an abstract grammar can be defined for SUPERSHAPES using, e.g., DTD (Document Type Definition). In addition, SUPERSHAPES can also be coded using SCG (Scalable Vector Graphics) in some embodiments.”);
exchanging the code between the source computing system and a target system([0216] “… information regarding the common file formats are into a GENICAP Class Library (GCL), such that all products can use the common methods for importing and exporting.”); and
([0215]-[0216]),
wherein a portion of the code provided to the target system ([0215]-[0216], examiner note: SUPERSHAPES can be coded using SCG/XML including any portion of the code provided to the GCL or a variety of applications) .

However, Gielis is not specific to teach determining one or more implicit equations/functions for one or more CAD bodies.

Ameta teaches determining one or more implicit equations/functions for one or more CAD bodies ([0015], “lattice structures of CAD objects may be represented as signed distance fields (SDFs), which may also be referred to as signed distance functions.”).

It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gielis to incorporate the teachings of Ameta, and apply signed distance functions represent lattice structures of CAD objects in order to increase the efficiency at which lattice designs are represented, instantiated, and processed, and may thus increase the computational speed and reduce memory requirements of computing systems that perform lattice infill generation and transformation processes [0015].

However, Gielis and Ameta fail to teach displaying the CAD body at the target system.

Massaro teaches displaying the CAD body at the target system (see claim 12, “... generating a visual representation of the CAD drawing, wherein the visual representation is formatted according to a drawing format used by the target application; and storing the visual representation in the composite drawing file, wherein a display of the visual representation generated by the target application reflects a display of the CAD drawing generated by the source application. [0008], “... importing data parameters into a program code and applying standard information such as design specifications as well as specific data associated with a system.” [0010], “... Geometrical information representing the visual representation and the property values of each component are exported to a data file using the first program code ... The data file is then imported into a second software application. The data file and the standards information is used to generate a final design using the second software application.”).

It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gielis and Ameta to incorporate the teachings of Massaro, and apply generated a visual representation of the CAD drawing, wherein the visual representation is formatted according to a drawing format used by the target application in order to display of the visual representation generated by the target application reflects a display of the CAD drawing generated by the source application. In this case, Gielis teaches SUPERSHAPES (i.e., proprietary geometry representation in fig.20) is coded using defined file standards (e.g., XLM or SVG), where the SUPERSHAPES including implicit function and parametric expression; then it can be saved to an external file, such as GENICAP SUPERGRAPHX Format (GSF) that represents SUPERSHAPES. Ameta teaches implicit function/equation is determined by the structures of CAD objects. Massaro teaches generating a visual representation of the CAD drawing to a format compatible with the target application, exporting the visual representation and associated CAD data into a file, and then importing the file into the second application on the target system, where the visual representation can be displayed to reflects the CAD drawing generated by the source application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Gielis, Ameta, and Massaro in order to allow a CAD drawing or its visual representation as code, based on an implicit function or parametric description to be generated at a source system, stored in a file, and imported into a target system, where the file is used to generated and display at target system a visual representation that corresponds to the original CAD drawing; it would provide the benefit of achieving interoperability between different system/application to enable efficient sharing based on the code in the file to ensure that CAD designs can be represented across different applications/system.

However, Gielis and Ameta and Massaro fail to teach a portion of the code is also provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system.

Hanniel teaches a portion of the code provided to a graphics processing unit of the source computing system to allow the CAD body to be displayed by the source computing system (fig.3; [0014], “GPU ray casting methods are also utilized for rendering of surfaces. Such methods include rendering implicit algebraic surfaces…”; [0023], “An example embodiment of the present invention may be implemented in the form of a method or corresponding product, data storage medium, or apparatus for rendering a solid computer-aided design (CAD) model directly on a GPU, and include, given a CAD model representing a real-world object constructing a boundary representation data structure of CAD model, which stores topological data comprised of data defining a face, constructing a data structure representing a parameter space of the face, and decomposing the parameter space into a number of cells. [0024], “For each cell, the presence of the face in the cell is designated by indicating that the cell is an empty type cell, a full type cell, an edge type cell, or a vertex type cell. The cells are encoded into a texture construct, which is transmitted to a graphics processing unit (GPU) where further processing renders the face on a computer monitor.” [0056], “…The polynomial is constructed by plugging the linear equation of R(t) into the implicit equations of the analytical surfaces…”; [0039]- [0040]; [0043] – [0046], “…fragment shader…” as code and [0083]).

It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gielis and Ameta and Massaro to incorporate the teachings of Hanniel, and apply a computer-implemented method and system for rendering a computer-aided design model, and encoding cells into texture construct that is transmitted to a graphics processing unit in order to processing renders the face on a computer monitor. In this case, Gielis teaches SUPERSHAPES (i.e., proprietary geometry representation in fig.20) is coded using defined file standards (e.g., XLM or SVG), where the SUPERSHAPES including implicit function and parametric expression; then it can be saved to an external file, such as GENICAP SUPERGRAPHX Format (GSF) that represents SUPERSHAPES. Ameta teaches implicit function/equation is determined by the structures of CAD objects. Massaro teaches generating a visual representation of the CAD drawing to a format compatible with the target application, exporting the visual representation and associated CAD data into a file, and then importing the file into the second application on the target system, where the visual representation can be displayed to reflects the CAD drawing generated by the source application. Hanniel teaches encoding CAD faces into texture constructs that are passed to the graphics processing unit (GPU) for directly rendering using ray casting, where implicit surface equations are solved directly in fragment shaders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Gielis, Ameta, Massaro and Hanniel in order to enable a CAD drawing or its visual representation to be generated at a source system based on an implicit or parametric geometry description, save in a file, and imported into a target system, where the same file is used to generate and display a visual representation, and the same encoded geometry data could be passed to the GPU of the source system to display the CAD body locally, and it also would enable interoperability across CAD platform and improve efficiency by avoiding tessellation while supporting high-quality rendering using compact code at both the source and the target system.

Claim 4, Gielis and Ameta and Massaro fail to teach the portion of the code provided to the graphics processing unit of the source computing system comprises code the source system is configured to generate for display purposes, independently of exchanging the code between the source computing system and the target system.

Hanniel teaches the portion of the code provided to the graphics processing unit of the source computing system comprises code the source system is configured to generate for display purposes, independently of exchanging the code between the source computing system and the target system (fig.3; [0014], “GPU ray casting methods are also utilized for rendering of surfaces. Such methods include rendering implicit algebraic surfaces…”; [0023], “An example embodiment of the present invention may be implemented in the form of a method or corresponding product, data storage medium, or apparatus for rendering a solid computer-aided design (CAD) model directly on a GPU, and include, given a CAD model representing a real-world object constructing a boundary representation data structure of CAD model, which stores topological data comprised of data defining a face, constructing a data structure representing a parameter space of the face, and decomposing the parameter space into a number of cells. [0024], “For each cell, the presence of the face in the cell is designated by indicating that the cell is an empty type cell, a full type cell, an edge type cell, or a vertex type cell. The cells are encoded into a texture construct, which is transmitted to a graphics processing unit (GPU) where further processing renders the face on a computer monitor.” [0056], “…The polynomial is constructed by plugging the linear equation of R(t) into the implicit equations of the analytical surfaces…”; [0039]- [0040]; [0043] – [0046], “…fragment shader…” as code and [0083]; Examiner note: a POSITA would understand that a fragment shader as a portion of code executed by the GPU to render CAD faces from texture constructs on the source computing system for display purpose. The GPU executed code is generated and supplied for local rendering at the source computing system and does not require or depend on exchanging code with a target system).

It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gielis and Ameta and Massaro to incorporate the teachings of Hanniel, and apply a computer-implemented method and system for rendering a computer-aided design model, and encoding cells into texture construct that is transmitted to a graphics processing unit in order to processing renders the face on a computer monitor. In this case, Gielis teaches SUPERSHAPES (i.e., proprietary geometry representation in fig.20) is coded using defined file standards (e.g., XLM or SVG), where the SUPERSHAPES including implicit function and parametric expression; then it can be saved to an external file, such as GENICAP SUPERGRAPHX Format (GSF) that represents SUPERSHAPES. Ameta teaches implicit function/equation is determined by the structures of CAD objects. Massaro teaches generating a visual representation of the CAD drawing to a format compatible with the target application, exporting the visual representation and associated CAD data into a file, and then importing the file into the second application on the target system, where the visual representation can be displayed to reflects the CAD drawing generated by the source application. Hanniel teaches encoding CAD faces into texture constructs that are passed to the graphics processing unit (GPU), and using ray casting on the source computing system's GPU to perform rendering based on solving implicit equations directly in fragment shaders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Gielis, Ameta, Massaro and Hanniel in order to enable a CAD drawing or its visual representation to be generated at a source system based on an implicit or parametric geometry description, save in a file, and imported into a target system, where the file is used to generate and display a CAD representation, and the encoded geometry data could be passed to the GPU of the source system for local rendering without requiring exchange of that data with the target system that supports efficient local display on the source system for previewing purpose, and provide optional choice for target system to enable interoperability across CAD platform and improve efficiency by avoiding tessellation while supporting high-quality rendering using compact code at both the source and the target system.

Claim 5, Gielis, Massaro and Hanniel fail to teaches the determination of the one or more implicit equations/functions includes determination of at least one signed distance function (SDF).

Ameta further teaches determination of at least one signed distance function (SDF) ([0015], “lattice structures of CAD objects may be represented as signed distance fields (SDFs), which may also be referred to as signed distance functions.”).

It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gielis, Massaro and Hanniel to incorporate the teachings of Ameta, and apply signed distance functions represent lattice structures of CAD objects in order to increase the efficiency at which lattice designs are represented, instantiated, and processed, and may thus increase the computational speed and reduce memory requirements of computing systems that perform lattice infill generation and transformation processes [0015].

Claim 6, Gielis further teaches the code accepts varying inputs, and wherein said varying inputs allow for one or more of parametric edits and manufacturing process correction at the target system ([0216], “information regarding the common file formats are into a GENICAP Class Library (GCL), such that all products can use the common methods for importing and exporting.” [0142], “…a SUPERFORMULA-based modeller (such as, e.g., a 2-D and/or 3-D modeller) can advantageously be used in a variety of applications, …”; [0210], “enabling the exchange of information between products;” [0211], “enabling common libraries to be built that can be used in any supporting product;” [0169] …FIG. 20 shows an illustrative shape window that can be presented which shows the produced shape. In some illustrative examples, additional commands (e.g., for creating and/or varying shapes, etc.) can be entered via a pointer device (such as, e.g., by a right-mouse click).” Examiner note: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art understand that other devices/ variety of applications would allow to load or import the common file including SUPERSHAPE is coded in SCG/XML documents, and show instructions in the user interface for varying inputs allow for one or more of parametric edit and manufacturing process correction. See also Massaro, fig.4 and [0047], [0055] as evidence that first application as source computing system, and second application as target system allow user to making the changes).

Claim 7, Gielis and Ameta and Massaro fail to teach the portion of the code provided to the graphics processing unit of the source computing system is OpenGL Shading Language (GLSL) code.

Hanniel teaches the portion of the code provided to the graphics processing unit of the source computing system is OpenGL Shading Language (GLSL) code. ([0082], “… In one embodiment, the present invention is implemented using the OpenGL and the GLSL shading language...”; [0045], “The GPU phase is implemented in the fragment shader.”).

It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gielis and Ameta and Massaro to incorporate the teachings of Hanniel, and apply a computer-implemented method and system for rendering a computer-aided design model, and encoding cells into texture construct that is transmitted to a graphics processing unit in order to processing renders the face on a computer monitor. In this case, Gielis teaches SUPERSHAPES (i.e., proprietary geometry representation in fig.20) is coded using defined file standards (e.g., XLM or SVG), where the SUPERSHAPES including implicit function and parametric expression; then it can be saved to an external file, such as GENICAP SUPERGRAPHX Format (GSF) that represents SUPERSHAPES. Ameta teaches implicit function/equation is determined by the structures of CAD objects. Massaro teaches generating a visual representation of the CAD drawing to a format compatible with the target application, exporting the visual representation and associated CAD data into a file, and then importing the file into the second application on the target system, where the visual representation can be displayed to reflects the CAD drawing generated by the source application. Hanniel teaches encoding CAD faces into texture constructs that are passed to the graphics processing unit (GPU) for directly rendering using ray casting, where implicit surface equations are solved directly in fragment shaders using the OpenGL and the GLSL shading language.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Gielis, Ameta, Massaro and Hanniel in order to enable a CAD drawing or its visual representation to be generated at a source system based on an implicit or parametric geometry description, save in a file, and imported into a target system, where the same file is used to generate and display a visual representation, and the same encoded geometry data could be passed to the GPU of the source system to display the CAD body locally using the OpenGL and the GLSL shading language, and it also would enable interoperability across CAD platform and improve efficiency by avoiding tessellation while supporting high-quality rendering using compact code at both the source and the target system.

The elements of claims 8 and 15 are substantially the same as those of claims 1. Further, claim 8 recites “A system for computer aided design (CAD) exchange comprising: a source computing system including at least one source computing system processor; a target computing system including at least one target computing system processor; a source computing system memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one source computing system processor, cause the source computing system to perform … and displaying the CAD body on the source computing system; and a target computing system memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one target computing system processor, cause the target computing system…” (see Gielis, fig.20; [0083] and [0086], “a central processing unit; memory (e.g., RAM, etc.)” and “The computer instructions can be written in various programming languages and/or can be stored in memory device(s)…”; See also Massaro, [0026], “Client terminals 110 and 120 are typically computers, or other processing devices such as a desktop computer, laptop computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), wireless handheld device, and the like. They may be capable of processing and storing data themselves or merely capable of accessing processed and stored data from another location (i.e., both thin and fat terminals). These client terminals 110, 120 are operatively connected to network 104, via bi-directional communication channels 116, 122, respectively, which may be for example a serial bus such as IEEE 1394, or other wire or wireless transmission medium. Client terminals 110, 120 are described in more detail in relation to FIG. 3.”; [0041], “As shown in FIG. 4, algorithm 400 is a series of steps, typically stored on a computer-readable medium that may be executed at a server, or other processing device to implement the present invention.”). Claim 15 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for computer aided design (CAD) exchange including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a source computing system, cause the source computing system to perform a method” (See Gielis, [0085], “The CPU 322 can communicate with a computer readable medium (e.g., conventional volatile or non-volatile data storage devices) 328 (hereafter "memory 328") over the bus 326.” Therefore, the elements of claims 8 and 15 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.

The elements of claims 11-14 and 18-20 are substantially the same as those of claims 4-7. Therefore, the elements of claims 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 4-7.

Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gielis and Ameta
and Massaro and Hanniel as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Salomie US 20060290695.

Claim 2, Gielis further teaches the CAD body (See Gielis, fig.35; [0064], “the CAD/CAM modeller with shape, positional, parts-assembly and Boolean information…”) comprises

However, Gielis and Ameta and Massaro and Hanniel fail to teach one or more external
function features/constituents, and wherein the code comprises one or more calls to corresponding external functions.
Salomie teaches one or more external function features/constituents, and wherein the code comprises one or more calls to corresponding external functions ([0207] “…, coding an n-dimensional discrete mesh (note: i.e., external function features) representation of a surface, the mesh representation of the surface comprising a plurality of boundary nodes, each boundary node lying on or adjacent to the surface, each boundary node being associated with connectivity information … the reference-grid being defined by the intersection points of n sets of reference surfaces; the reference-surfaces keep their initial ordering at the surface of the object, and they do not self-intersect … a representation of at least one boundary node and the connectivity information of a plurality of boundary nodes as a list of directions starting from at least one boundary node to reach the plurality of other boundary nodes.” Examiner note: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art understand that coding the external function features (i.e., meshes) would allow any device using code to recall the external functions).

It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gielis and Ameta and Massaro and Hanniel to incorporate the teachings of Salomie, and apply coding an n-dimensional discrete mesh (note: i.e., external function features) representation of a surface in order to storing and recall of surface representations of multi-dimensional objects, in the transmission of these representations over bandwidth limited transmission channels, in view-dependent decoding or visualization scenarios to adapt the complexity of the scene depending on the processing power in order to satisfy the Quality of Service (QoS), and in editing and animation operations [0003].

The elements of claims 9 and 16 are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Therefore, the elements of claims 9 and 16 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2.

Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gielis and
Ameta and Massaro and Hanniel as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Rappoport US 7099803.

Claim 3, Gielis and Ameta and Massaro and Hanniel further teaches (See Gielis, [0086], “…computer system…”) to the target system (See Gielis, i.e., GENICAP Class Library (GCL) or other devices/variety of applications would import the common file formats from GCL)”),

However, Gielis and Ameta and Massaro and Hanniel fail to teach providing a backup texture for the CAD body.

Rappoport teaches a backup texture for the CAD body (fig.6; col.52-57, “A current object region 605 temporarily caches (examiner note: i.e., backup texture) one or more portions of a feature list from a source CAD system 401--this cache generally represents a set of data (or operations) that is sufficiently proportioned so that it is large enough to hold the largest source operation pattern; col.10, line 10-17, “a bridge structure 402' is shown in FIG. 6. The bridge structure 402' can be universal data type or product representation--that is, an intermediate data type that is not, strictly speaking, the target data type. Thus, the bridge structure 402' can include additional information concerning the source CAD model, the target CAD model, and extraction and creation information that can be used for a lossless, two-way data exchange.” Examiner note: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art understand a temporarily caches as backup texture for one or more portions of a feature list from a source CAD system can be sent to bridge structure (e.g., part of target system) associated with target CAD system).

It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gielis and Ameta and Massaro and Hanniel to incorporate the teachings of Rappoport, and apply a temporarily caches as backup texture for one or more portions of a feature list from a source CAD system can be sent to bridge structure (e.g., part of target system) associated with target CAD system in order to set up a dedicated storage area on a target system that allowing faster retrieval of that data by significantly reducing the need to repeatedly fetch it from the original source, thus improving overall performance.

The elements of claims 10 and 17 are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Therefore, the elements of claims 10 and 17 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.

Shapiro US 6718291, disclose geometric models by implicit mathematical functions. The implicit functions allow interpolation of all desired boundary conditions over the geometry without meshing, and the boundary conditions may then may be combined with a piecewise continuous model of the solution structure (i.e., the analysis problem).

Rappoport US 6614430, discloses a method and apparatus for mechanical data exchange between parametric computer aided design systems ("CAD"). According to an embodiment, computer-implemented methods, techniques and structures are employed to extract parametric specification data from a source CAD file and create a second parametric-based CAD file for a different CAD system. In one embodiment, an intermediate data structure is utilized. An objective is creation of a second parametric-based CAD file that preserves design intent of the parametric-based source CAD file.

D'Souza US 6587746, discloses a code generation program, referred to as a parent program, for the creation of a child program for generating CAD script commands for automatically creating drawings in a CAD program.

“Modelling with Implicit Surfaces that Interpolate” by GREG TURK, published in October 2002,
discloses implicit functions for 2D and 3D modeling associated with CAD, and equations into code (introduction, page.861, 866).

THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI HAO whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at [phone]. 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.

/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187

Prosecution Timeline

• Mar 04, 2025: Application Filed
• May 06, 2025: Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112
• Nov 10, 2025: Response Filed
• Jan 12, 2026: Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112 (current)