Figure 1: Problems Encountered Without 3D Modelling<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n1. More Time for Drawing Preparation: <\/strong>In theabsence of 3D modelling, the drawings take more time to prepare. That is because inventors need to represent all the sections and parts of drawings with a limited capacity of 2D graphics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n2. Extra Time for Understanding an Invention: <\/strong>A drawing representation with 3D modelling, makes it easy for an examiner or a general observer to grasp the finer details of the invention. The same cannot be said about a 2D representation as it might not be able to represent the 3D concept of the drawing in a 2D perspective. Consequently, it may take more time, even for the most experienced examiner and observer to fathom the details of the invention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n3. More Time to Establish Consistency between Each View: <\/strong>Establishing consistency and relationship between symmetric views becomes easy with 3D modelling. For example, while explaining the invention in 3D perspective, drawings can be represented in a combination of top and bottom view, left and right view, front and back view, etc. This results in more clarity for the examiner and observer from a 360\u00b0 perspective. However, in the absence of 3D modelling, the consistency between different views is hard to establish and comprehend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n4. Errors in Representing Same Parts at Different Angle in Different Figures<\/strong>: The tools and features available in 3D modelling make it easier to reproduce the same parts at different angles in different figures. However, replicating the same task is relatively more complicated in the absence of 3D modelling, thereby creating confusion in the observer’s mind while going through the drawing representation at different angles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n5. More Time to Prepare Exploded and Sectional View: <\/strong>Exploded diagrams explain how different components of a product can be assembled with dotted lines representing the point of connection. On the other hand, sectional views are used to represent interior construction of a part that is otherwise challenging to describe with hidden lines in exterior view. Both the exploded view and sectional view are critical to representing an invention’s uniqueness. Hence, they are best represented by 3D modelling. Without the sophistication of 3D modelling, it becomes difficult to capture the intricacies of the invention without a suitable representation of the exploded and sectional view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n6. Greater probability of Office Action over Consistency and Quality<\/strong>: Without 3D modelling, reproducing the desired representation of the product\u2019s part\/s becomes a stretching task. Moreover, it is also tough to capture the uniqueness of the invention. Any deviation from the actual product representation (that inventor wishes to show) creates ambiguity in the examiner’s and observer’s mind, leading to office action over quality and consistency.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIdentifying the problems without 3D modelling is the right step before strategizing over its solutions. Therefore, let us discuss the solutions offered by 3D modelling in the next section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n