DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-10, and 12-20 have been presented for examination.
Claim 11 has been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to application GERMANY 10 2021 110 650.8 filed 04/26/2021.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants amendments the 112 rejections have been WITHDRAWN.
ii) Following Applicants amendments the 101 rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-20 has been MAINTAINED. Applicants argue that the claims recite a computer implemented method and an additive manufacturing process and therefore cannot be considered an abstract idea.
However as noted in the previous office action and reiterated below recite the recitation of a computer implemented method merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The claims merely detail instructions on how to simulate polishing pad conditioning by a processor. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
With respect to the additive manufacturing process the recitation of this element is determined to be nothing more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, the use of an additive manufacturing process is determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Therefore, as shown by Applicant’s own disclosure, see page 1, “Devices and methods for producing a three-dimensional object are widely known in the prior art. WO 2006/122645 A, for example, discloses a device and a method for producing a three-dimensional object by solidifying layers of a powdery material.” the 2B features of the invention are “routine and conventional.”
Further with respect to Applicants arguments that the claims present “more versatile additive production…” the Examiner notes that the prior art rejection below appears to indicate that this process is disclosed and therefore would not result in an improvement as alleged by Applicants.
Therefore the 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
iii) Applicants argue that in the prior art “Duan, what is actually shown in Figure 8 reproduced above is the lattice in an early stage of the process, in which, for each of the two bodies, the lattice in the region of the joint is being adapted and the struts of the cells do not yet have any volume. Consequently, at this stage, a cell-conforming division is not possible. This is also confirmed by Figure 9 of Duan, which illustrates that the cell is divided along the separating line into two open cells, and that these two open cells are then closed again by a respective non-volume strut in order to form two fully-fledged, separate cells.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “cell conforming division” as limited by Applicants arguments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments further do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. It is noted that the section Applicants argue make no such limitation nor do the claims recite Applicants contention. The Examiner notes that the claims when given their broadest reasonable interpretation recite the argued elements in the argued Figures of Duan. The Examiner also notes the similarity of Applicants Figure 9 which they recite as cell conforming division and Figure 8 of Duan which shows the same layout of cells, and a division of cells. Applicants claims lack the specificity with which to distinguish from the recitation of Duan and as such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
5. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 and 17 are directed to a statutory category as a process, claim 14 and 20 are directed to a statutory category as a machine, claims 15-16 are directed to an article of manufacture as a computer readable storage medium, and claim 19 is directed to an article of manufacture, which each represent a statutory category of invention.
Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 14-17, and 19-20 recite the abstract idea of dividing a 3D model into two partial models which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14-17, and 19-20 the limitation of “creating a virtual separating surface for the overall model of the body, which has a three-dimensional cell-conforming shape that follows the geometry, shape, outer surface, and/or contour of the unit cells;” would be analogous to a person evaluating a 3D shape and deciding on how to separate the shape and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14-17, and 19-20 the limitation of “creating the overall model of the body with a lattice structure formed from a plurality of cells wherein the unit cells are replaced by struts extending along the edges of the unit cells and representing bodies with a volume;” would be analogous to a person visualizing a 3D shape and its structure and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14-17, and 19-20 the limitation of “dividing the overall model along the cell-conforming separating surface into two partial models,” would be analogous to a person dividing a 3D shape into two sub shapes and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14-17, and 19-20 the limitation of “wherein common struts of the lattice structure, which are each part of at least one cell of one partial model and part of at least one adjacent cell of the other partial model are divided by means of the cell-conforming separating surface in such a way that the corresponding cells remain closed” would be analogous to a person dividing a 3D shape based on some limited constraints and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As recited the claim limitations, in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of dividing a 3D model into two partial models which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, and 18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 13, 14, 15, and 20, the additional element of “a computing unit” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14-17, and 19-20 of “providing a three-dimensional virtual base body and filling the base body with a plurality of unit cells, wherein each of said unit cells comprises a plurality of edges and a cell surface defining the outer shape of the respective unit cell;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “providing a three-dimensional virtual base body and filling the base body with a plurality of unit cells, wherein each of said unit cells comprises a plurality of edges and a cell surface defining the outer shape of the respective unit cell;” in claims 1, 14-17, and 19-20, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, and 18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 14-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As per claims 13, 14, 15, and 20 the additional element of “a computing unit”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2))
The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 14-17, and 19-20 of “providing a three-dimensional virtual base body and filling the base body with a plurality of unit cells, wherein each of said unit cells comprises a plurality of edges and a cell surface defining the outer shape of the respective unit cell;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “providing a three-dimensional virtual base body and filling the base body with a plurality of unit cells, wherein each of said unit cells comprises a plurality of edges and a cell surface defining the outer shape of the respective unit cell;” in claims 1, 14-17, and 19-20, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
Claims 17 and 18, and in the alternative in claim 20 recite the production of an object using an additive production device. As per Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) the step of producing the claimed steps using a final additive production process or device represents a well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See for example patent publication 20110087350 and U.S. Patent 8412588 discussing the process of additive manufacturing at least 10+ years ago as well as Applicants own admission on page 1 of their specification “Devices and methods for producing a three-dimensional object are widely known in the prior art. WO 2006/122645 A, for example, discloses a device and a method for producing a three-dimensional object by solidifying layers of a powdery material.” The claims thus recite a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, the use of the additive production, in a generic manner and/or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 further defines characteristics of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 3 further defines characteristics of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 4 further defines characteristics of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 5 further defines characteristics of the dividing of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 6 further defines characteristics of the dividing of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 7 further defines characteristics of the dividing of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 8 further defines characteristics of the dividing of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 9 further defines characteristics of the dividing of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 10 further defines characteristics of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 12 further defines characteristics of the dividing of the 3D shape model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. See above with respect to the recited additive manufacturing.
Dependent claim 13 further defines a user involvement in the dividing the 3D shape which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. Claims 1-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Duan, Li, et al. "Automatic three-dimensional-scanned garment fitting based on virtual tailoring and geometric sewing." Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 14 (2019): 1558925018825319, hereafter Duan.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method for dividing a virtual three-dimensional overall model of a body into at least two virtual partial models, comprising:
providing a three-dimensional virtual base body and filling the base body with a plurality of unit cells, wherein each of said unit cells comprises a plurality of edges and a cell surface defining the outer shape of the respective unit cell; (Figure 8)
creating a virtual separating surface for the overall model of the body, which has a three-dimensional cell-conforming shape that follows the geometry, shape, outer surface, and/or contour of the unit cells; (Figure 8a)
creating the overall model of the body with a lattice structure formed from a plurality of cells wherein the unit cells are replaced by struts extending along the edges of the unit cells and representing bodies with a volume; and (Figure 8b. Figure 18, seam line reads on the claimed struts)
dividing the overall model along the cell-conforming separating surface into two partial models, (Figure 8c)
wherein common struts of the lattice structure, which are each part of at least one cell of one partial model and part of at least one adjacent cell of the other partial model are divided by means of the cell-conforming separating surface in such a way that the corresponding cells remain closed. (Figure 8c boundary edges. See also Page 3, left column “At each slice, the intersection points were ordered in contour-clockwise direction to form closed loops, as shown in Figure 3.” See Figure 3)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 1, characterized in wherein the common struts are divided in their respective longitudinal direction. (Figure 18, seam line reads on the claimed common struts)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the common struts are divided in such a way that the parts of the respective common strut each extend without gaps and/or continuously between two nodes of the respective corresponding cell. (Figure 8c boundary edges. See also Page 3, left column “At each slice, the intersection points were ordered in contour-clockwise direction to form closed loops, as shown in Figure 3.” See Figure 3)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the common struts is divided in such a way that the respective parts are symmetrical or asymmetrical to one another. (Figure 18, seam line is divided in both symmetrical as per the division segment of each line between node points, and asymmetrical as in the entire length of the seam from top to bottom)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising:
defining at least one cut surface dividing the base body, wherein the cut surface is a flat, curved and/or kinked cut surface.
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the three-dimensional cell-conforming shape of the separating surface is determined by an algorithm and/or by means of the cell surface of at least some of the unit cells located in the region of the cut surface. (Page 2, bottom right, “In order to guarantee the smoothness of the mesh deformation, Laplacian-based deformation was a possible selection, the local optimization algorithm could be used to obtain the final position of each vertex. Sorkine et al. used Laplacian-based deformation to edit surface shape while respecting the detail of structural geometry. Nealen et al. present a Laplacian-based deformation optimization algorithm, which improved the quality of the triangulation while remaining faithful to the original surface geometry.”)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein in order to create the three-dimensional cell-conforming shape of the separating surface, at least the whole unit cells located in the region of the cut surface are assigned on each of the two sides to the cut surface so that each of the two sides of the cut surface is assigned to a respective unit cell group which has a three-dimensional cell-conforming abutment surface in the region of the cut surface. (Figure 8c boundary edges, each side is respective sleeve or trunk surface. See also Page 3, left column “At each slice, the intersection points were ordered in contour-clockwise direction to form closed loops, as shown in Figure 3.” See Figure 3)
Regarding Claim 8: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the whole unit cells are assigned to one of the two sides of the cut surface via their center point, wherein the whole unit cells are preferably assigned to the side of the cut surface on which its center point is located. (Figure 4, Ci represent center points of each surface and their respective slice loops. See also top left page 6, “To obtain a Pneck body _ left , two segments, that is, ( Phead body , Pshoulderbody _ left ) and ( Pheadbody , Pshoulderbody _ right ) were formed, where Pheadbody was the center point of the second slice from top of the head.”)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 7, wherein the shape of the separating surface is created correspondingly and/or on the basis of the three-dimensional cell-conforming abutment surface of one of the respective unit cell groups. (Figure 8c boundary edges, each side is respective sleeve or trunk surface. See also Page 3, left column “At each slice, the intersection points were ordered in contour-clockwise direction to form closed loops, as shown in Figure 3.” See Figure 3)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the unit cells are intersected with an outer surface of the base body, to form a surface lattice structure. (Page 3, left column “At each slice, the intersection points were ordered in contour-clockwise direction to form closed loops, as shown in Figure 3.” See Figure 3)
Regarding Claim 13: The reference discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the method steps are carried out by a user with a computing unit, having a computer program stored thereon and/or artificial intelligence, and/or by such a computing unit. (Page 2, left column last paragraph to right column, “Some researchers segmented 3D human body and flattened the patches to 2D patterns for the CAD. Others try to use 3D Garment from scans for virtual dressing. Due to the varieties of 3D scans in both garment styles and human postures, the shape matching became a critical problem. Zhong used skeleton-matching algorithm to adjust the posture of the human body to cope with the posture of the garment. Huang and Yang divided the body into several parts and adjusted the parts’ position to match the garment posture. Guan et al. used the machine learning method to learn different postures of deformable clothing to show drape effect.”)
Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses Computing unit for dividing a virtual three-dimensional overall model of a body into at least two virtual partial models, with a computer program and/or artificial intelligence stored thereon, wherein the computing unit is designed to carry out the method steps of a method according to claim 1. (See rejection for claim 1)
Regarding Claim 15: The reference discloses Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program and/or artificial intelligence which, when executed by a computing unit, causes said unit to carry out the method steps of a method for dividing a virtual three-dimensional overall model of a body into at least two virtual partial models according to claim 1. (See rejection for claim 1)
Regarding Claim 16: The reference discloses Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a virtual three-dimensional overall model of a body stored at least partially thereon, which is divided into at least two virtual partial models, with a method according to claim 1. (See rejection for claim 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. Claim(s) 12, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan in view of Kim, Sohyun, et al. "A study of the development and improvement of fashion products using a FDM type 3D printer." Fashion and Textiles 6.1 (2019): 9, hereafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 12: Duan discloses Computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising:
matching at least one external dimension of the virtual three-dimensional overall model of the body with at least one corresponding internal dimension of a limited production area of an additive manufacturing device in at least one spatial direction; (Duan. Page 8, bottom right, “To match the 3D garment cutting pieces and their corresponding parts of the human model using ICP, we need to measure and compare their sizes. The shoulder width, chest circumference, and hip circumference are used to judge whether the suit and the trousers fit the human model. As a rule of thumb, the 3D garment cutting pieces and the 3D human model match well when the gaps of their shoulder width and hip circumference are less than 5% and 3%, respectively. The shoulder width and chest circumference can be calculated by measuring the length of the loop cut through the shoulder point and the armpit point, respectively. The hip circumference can be calculated by measuring the longest loop among those near the hipline.”)
dividing the overall model into the at least two virtual three-dimensional partial models (Duan. Figure 8c)
forming at least one connecting element, which connects the at least two partial models to one another in such a movable manner that they move relative to one another from a production position in which corresponding joining surfaces of the partial models are spaced apart to a joining position in which the corresponding joining surfaces of the partial models abut one another; and/or (Duan. Figure 23, sewing of the partial models together)
Duan does not explicitly recite creating a virtual three-dimensional production model in the production position of the partial models.
However Kim discloses creating a virtual three-dimensional production model in the production position of the partial models. (Kim. Figure 11 to Figure 14)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the additive manufacturing approach of Kim for the modeling in Duan since “more diverse and active attempts to utilize 3D technology will be pursued by those who develop various fashion products.” (Kim. Abstract)
Regarding Claim 17: Duan discloses Production method for producing a body, said production method utilizing a virtual three-dimensional overall model of the body, which is divided into at least two virtual partial models, and which is created with the computer implemented method according to claim 1; said production method comprising:(See rejection for claim 1)
Duan does not explicitly recite creating production data for an additive production device based on the divided, virtual, three-dimensional overall model; and
producing the body with the additive production device based on the production.
However Kim discloses creating production data for an additive production device based on the divided, virtual, three-dimensional overall model; and (Kim. Figure 11)
producing the body with the additive production device based on the production. (Kim. Figure 14)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the additive manufacturing approach of Kim for the modeling in Duan since “more diverse and active attempts to utilize 3D technology will be pursued by those who develop various fashion products.” (Kim. Abstract)
Regarding Claim 19: The reference discloses Physical body, wherein the physical body is produced with a production method according to 17. (See rejection for claim 17)
Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses Device with a computing unit for creating a virtual three-dimensional overall model, and with an additive production device for producing the body, wherein the computing unit is designed to carry out the method steps of a method for creating a virtual three-dimensional overall model of the body according to claim 1. (See rejection for claim 17)
8. Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan in view of Kim in view of Crump et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20050173839, hereafter Crump.
Regarding Claim 18: Duan and Kim disclose Production method according to claim 17, characterized in wherein, based on the partial models, partial bodies are manufactured, with at least one of the partial bodies being produced in an additive production process, (Kim. Figure 14)
Duan and Kim do not explicitly recite with the at least two partial bodies being exposed to a solvent atmosphere in a chamber, so that a surface of the partial bodies is smoothed, and that the at least two partial bodies are placed in the chamber in such a way that they are on at least one joining surface and that the solvent atmosphere thus forms an integral connection between the at least two partial bodies on the at least one joining surface.
However Crump discloses with the at least two partial bodies being exposed to a solvent atmosphere in a chamber, so that a surface of the partial bodies is smoothed, and that the at least two partial bodies are placed in the chamber in such a way that they are on at least one joining surface and that the solvent atmosphere thus forms an integral connection between the at least two partial bodies on the at least one joining surface. (Crump “[0011] In a preferred embodiment, the mold tool is made by a fused deposition modeling technique. In one embodiment, the mold tool is built in two or more portions, wherein layers of thermally solidifiable non-conductive material are deposited in a predetermined pattern according to computer file data representing the mold shape. Each mold portion includes a mold surface, a mating surface, and a base which supports the mold and mating surfaces. Together the mold portions define the mold cavity.” And “[0034] In a preferred embodiment, the smoothing is done in a vapor smoothing process, which is the subject of International Application No. PCT/US03/______ entitled "Smoothing Method For Layered Deposition Modeling," filed Apr. 4, 2003, assigned to the same assignee as the present application, and hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. As is disclosed in said co-pending application, the surfaces of the mold tool can be smoothed by placing the mold tool in a vaporizer and exposing it to vapors of a solvent until a desired surface finish is obtained. The solvent is selected to be compatible with the material which forms the mold tool. Suitable solvents will react with the material so as to soften and flow the material at the object surfaces. A preferred solvent for use with a wide range of amorphous thermoplastics is methylene chloride. Other suitable solvents will be recognized by those skilled in the art, for instance, an n-Propyl bromide solution (e.g., Abzol.RTM.)), perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and a hydrofluorocarbon fluid sold under the name Vertrel.RTM.. Vapor smoothing will also serve to seal the surfaces of the mold tool. As is taught in said co-pending application, certain mold features may be identified for solvent masking or for pre-distortion prior to the vapor smoothing step, and the computer file data representing the mold tool may include data identifying said features. Alternatively, smoothing can be done by applying a liquid solvent. Other alternative smoothing techniques include sanding, grinding, and thermal ironing.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the additive manufacturing approach of Crump for the additive manufacturing and modeling in Kim and Duan since as per Crump [0004] “These additive process techniques produce prototypes useful for evaluating the fit, form and function of a part design, to gain preliminary part approval and to accelerate product development.”
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
10. All Claims are rejected.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Wang, Zhiping, et al. "Stiffness modulation for soft robot joint via lattice structure configuration design." Procedia CIRP 100 (2021): 732-737.
ii) Baek, Adrian Matias Chung. NON-PERIODIC LATTICE STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING. Diss. Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 2020.
iii) Lu, Bingheng, Dichen Li, and Xiaoyong Tian. "Development trends in additive manufacturing and 3D printing." Engineering 1.1 (2015): 085-089.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188