DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-17 have been presented for examination.
Claims 16-17 are newly added.
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 that this application is a 371 of PCT/US2020/026016 filed 03/31/2020.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants amendments an additional prior art rejection has been presented below.
ii) With respect to Applicants arguments that Paulsen does not teach starting with a preexisting model. The Examiner first notes that this terminology is not present in the claims. The claims merely recite accessing a digital 3D model. In either case this limitation is disclosed in Paulsen in at least Column 2, Lines 43-47, “Hence, some embodiments of the method described herein use a combination of 3D spatial caching, local computations, and fast iso-surfacing. The inventors have found that embodiments of the method described herein allow generation of accurate 3D surface reconstruction in near real time” as well as Column 4, Lines 10-13, “(2) FIG. 1 shows a schematic view of an example of an apparatus for obtaining geometrical data relating to the internal surface of a cavity and for generating a digital representation of the surface.” Further the Examiner notes that E also recites this feature in at least Figure 3 whereby the image is processed and therefore stored for access prior to printing. Therefore the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8314794, hereafter Paulsen in view of Elkhuizen, Willemijn, et al. "Gloss, color, and topography scanning for reproducing a painting’s appearance using 3D printing." Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 12.4 (2019): 1-22, hereafter E.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses An apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory on which is stored machine-readable instructions that are to cause the processor to:
access a digital three-dimensional (3D) model, (Column 2, Lines 43-47, “Hence, some embodiments of the method described herein use a combination of 3D spatial caching, local computations, and fast iso-surfacing. The inventors have found that embodiments of the method described herein allow generation of accurate 3D surface reconstruction in near real time” as well as Column 4, Lines 10-13, “(2) FIG. 1 shows a schematic view of an example of an apparatus for obtaining geometrical data relating to the internal surface of a cavity and for generating a digital representation of the surface.”) the digital 3D model including a surface; (Paulsen. Column 7, Lines 16-61, “(28) In one embodiment of the process, the surface reconstruction is based on the fact that a point cloud can be approximated locally using ellipsoids. This can be seen in FIG. 5 where the point cloud of FIG. 4 is approximated by a number of fitted ellipsoids. In the example of FIG. 3, an ellipsoid 305 calculated for current cell 303 is shown. Each ellipsoid may be computed using a principal component analysis (PCA) of the points in the near surrounding, e.g. in the predetermined proximity defined by the neighbour cells.)
pack a plurality of digital ellipsoids in conformance with a curvature of the surface of the digital 3D model and such that external of the digital ellipsoids intersect the surface; (Paulsen. Column 7, Lines 16-61, “(28) In one embodiment of the process, the surface reconstruction is based on the fact that a point cloud can be approximated locally using ellipsoids. This can be seen in FIG. 5 where the point cloud of FIG. 4 is approximated by a number of fitted ellipsoids. In the example of FIG. 3, an ellipsoid 305 calculated for current cell 303 is shown. Each ellipsoid may be computed using a principal component analysis (PCA) of the points in the near surrounding, e.g. in the predetermined proximity defined by the neighbour cells.”)
determine locations on the surface at which the external of the digital ellipsoids intersect the surface; and (Paulsen. Column 8, Lines 45-55, “(33) FIG. 6 shows a flow diagram of an example of the surface reconstruction step S7, while FIG. 10 illustrates different sub-steps of an example of the surface reconstruction step. The surface reconstruction step receives the local surface representations as an input, i.e. in one embodiment the local ellipsoids. In an initial step S71, the process performs a connectivity analysis so as to remove outliers. To this end, the process groups the local surface representations into connected clusters, e.g. by means of a flood-fill type graph algorithm.”)
set the determined locations as points on the surface at which a plurality of pores are to be formed on the surface. (Paulsen. Column 7, Lines 16-61, “(28) In one embodiment of the process, the surface reconstruction is based on the fact that a point cloud can be approximated locally using ellipsoids. This can be seen in FIG. 5 where the point cloud of FIG. 4 is approximated by a number of fitted ellipsoids. In the example of FIG. 3, an ellipsoid 305 calculated for current cell 303 is shown. Each ellipsoid may be computed using a principal component analysis (PCA) of the points in the near surrounding, e.g. in the predetermined proximity defined by the neighbour cells. The shape of the ellipsoid may be used to determine whether a part of the sampled surface is actually present or if the points in this local region are just noise. Initially, the orientation of the local surface normal may be defined relative to the scanner path of the scanner/probe that has obtained the point cloud data. To this end, the process determines the closest position on the scanner path from the current ellipsoid, and defines the local surface normal so as to point away from the path. FIG. 8 shows a number of local surface representations 811 and the scanner path 810. The scanner path may be recorded by any suitable detection mechanism, e.g. by the sensor unit 104 shown in FIG. 1, e.g. as a sequence of coordinates. FIG. 9 shows a number of local surface representations and their respective local surface normals.” See also with respect to the claimed pores Column 11, Lines 32-42, “(45) The FastRBF surface reconstruction algorithm is excellent at extrapolation so it extends beyond the areas with good support by local surface representations. In order to provide feedback to the operator during the scanning process, it is desirable to determine where the generated surface ends and where there are "holes" in the surface. Therefore, the process determines which surface parts/patches have local support by a valid local surface representation. To this end, a "hole" may be defined as an area with no support by a local surface representation, but where the area is surrounded by areas with support by local surface representations.”)
Paulsen does not explicitly recite of an item to be fabricated via 3D printing and during fabrication of the item via 3D printing.
However E recites of an item to be fabricated via 3D printing and during fabrication of the item via 3D printing. (E. Page 27:4, “2.4 3DColor and Topography Capturing Various systems can capture the color as well as topography of paintings’ surfaces: using three-color laser scanning [4, 10], combining line-laser scanning with color imaging [31], and fringe projection 3D scanning (e.g., References [2, 12, 46]).” See also Page 27:7, Section 3.2, “3.2 Printing System An adapted version of Océ Technologies’ [53] Elevated Printing technology [54] is used for printing. The ink-jet system utilizes UV-curable inks. A transparent ink is added to the default CMYK and White ink channels, which can be used to create spatially varying gloss. This experimental printer has a build volume of 1.25 × 2.5 m (X,Y) and 5 mm(Z) height. The printing system has a planar resolution of 450 dpi (56 µm), and the smallest possible layer resolution is 2 µm.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the 3D scanning/printing/fabricating aspect of E with the 3D modeling aspect of Paulsen in order to allow for a “sufficiently fast for practical application” methodology of “physical reproduction” as well as to create “realistic reproductions.”
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the external of the digital ellipsoids intersect the surface at respective centers thereof or respective contact positions thereof to the surface. (Paulsen. Column 8, Lines 55-65, “(34) The process may determine two neighbouring local surface representations as being connected based on a suitable criterion for connectedness, e.g. a criterion based on the distance between the local surface representations and their relative orientation. FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a measure of connectedness between local surface representations. The distance between local surface representations 711 and 712 may be defined as the distance d1 between their respective centres of mass 715 and 716.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to: access properties of the pores to be formed on the surface; and determine spacings of the external of the digital ellipsoids based on the accessed properties of the pores to be formed on the surface. (Paulsen. Column 9, Lines 10-25, “(35) It will be appreciated that additional or alternative measures of connectedness may be applied. For example, in some embodiments, a second distance d2 is used in addition to the distance d1 and the angle between normal. The distance d2 is the distance of the projection 717 of the centre 716 of one of the neighbouring local surface representations 712 onto the direction of the local surface normal 713 of the other local surface representation 711 from the centre 715 of the other local surface representation 711. This distance d2 may also be referred to as the projected distance. By requiring that the projected distance is smaller than a predetermined maximum distance, it may be ensured that two neighbouring local surface representations are placed approximately on the same plane. Again the maximum allowable projected distance is a pre-set and/or user-selectable parameter. For surface reconstructions of the human ear canal, a maximum projected distance of 1 mm has been found useful.”)
Regarding Claim 4: Paulsen does not explicitly disclose The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to access the properties from information corresponding to the digital 3D model, wherein the information comprises a color value and/or a texture value assigned to the surface of the digital 3D model, and wherein different color values and/or texture values correspond to different properties.
However E recites The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to access the properties from information corresponding to the digital 3D model, wherein the information comprises a color value and/or a texture value assigned to the surface of the digital 3D model, and wherein different color values and/or texture values correspond to different properties. (E. Page 27:8, Section 4.3 “The magnitude of the specular component(ρs) is extracted across the surface, varying in relative intensity due to micro-scale roughness scattering (low intensity for a rough surface and high for a glossy surface) as the input parameter for the gloss printing.” Page 27:7, Section 4.1, “After scanning the color, topography and gloss images are processed off-line for each tile, and then they are stitched to form the color, topography, and gloss images of the whole painting. The gloss image is mapped to the printable gloss range, and finally a 3D print is made using the color, topography, and gloss map. Details on color and topography capture, gloss capturing, and fabrication are presented in the following sections.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the 3D scanning/printing/fabricating aspect of E with the 3D modeling aspect of Paulsen in order to allow for a “sufficiently fast for practical application” methodology of “physical reproduction” as well as to create “realistic reproductions.”
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to: add digital representations of the plurality of pores at the set points on the surface at which the plurality of pores are to be formed (Paulsen. Figures 4-5 and 8-9)
Paulsen does not explicitly recite during fabrication of the item via 3D printing.
However E discloses during fabrication of the item via 3D printing. (E. Page 27:7, Section 3.2, “3.2 Printing System An adapted version of Océ Technologies’ [53] Elevated Printing technology [54] is used for printing. The ink-jet system utilizes UV-curable inks. A transparent ink is added to the default CMYK and White ink channels, which can be used to create spatially varying gloss. This experimental printer has a build volume of 1.25 × 2.5 m (X,Y) and 5 mm(Z) height. The printing system has a planar resolution of 450 dpi (56 µm), and the smallest possible layer resolution is 2 µm.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the 3D scanning/printing/fabricating aspect of E with the 3D modeling aspect of Paulsen in order to allow for a “sufficiently fast for practical application” methodology of “physical reproduction” as well as to create “realistic reproductions.”
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the digital 3D model of the item identifies a first area of the surface to be fabricated with the plurality of pores arranged with a first property and a second area of the surface to be fabricated with the plurality of pores arranged with a second property (Paulsen. Column 1, Lines 34-45, “The advantage of having a data model of the ear canal, e.g. compared to traditional manufacturing processes based on ear impressions taken by introducing a semi-fluent, curable material into the ear canal, is that the production of the shell can take place at any location. This in turn allows a centralisation of the shell production at a central production facility, thereby facilitating the maintenance of a uniform quality. Further so the data model may be transmitted either as it is obtained or right thereafter for evaluation at a production facility. Thereby a data model of the hearing aid may be generated, which may be realized based on the dimensions and shape of the canal. The data model of the hearing aid can be transmitted back to the end user for visual evaluation.”) wherein the plurality of digital ellipsoids are packed by: packing a first plurality of digital ellipsoids in conformance with the first area of the surface of the digital 3D model, (Paulsen. Column 7, Lines 16-61, “(28) In one embodiment of the process, the surface reconstruction is based on the fact that a point cloud can be approximated locally using ellipsoids. This can be seen in FIG. 5 where the point cloud of FIG. 4 is approximated by a number of fitted ellipsoids. In the example of FIG. 3, an ellipsoid 305 calculated for current cell 303 is shown. Each ellipsoid may be computed using a principal component analysis (PCA) of the points in the near surrounding, e.g. in the predetermined proximity defined by the neighbour cells.”) such that centers of external of the first plurality of digital ellipsoids intersect the surface in the first area; packing a second plurality of digital ellipsoids in conformance with the second area of the surface of the digital 3D model, the second plurality of digital ellipsoids being spaced at a different spacing than the first plurality of digital ellipsoids, such that centers of external of the second plurality of digital ellipsoids intersect the surface in the second area; (Paulsen. Column 8, Lines 55-65, “(34) The process may determine two neighbouring local surface representations as being connected based on a suitable criterion for connectedness, e.g. a criterion based on the distance between the local surface representations and their relative orientation. FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a measure of connectedness between local surface representations. The distance between local surface representations 711 and 712 may be defined as the distance d1 between their respective centres of mass 715 and 716.”) wherein the locations on the surface are determined by: determining locations of the first area of the surface corresponding to the centers of the external of the first plurality of digital ellipsoids; determining locations of the second area of the surface corresponding to the centers of the external of the second plurality of digital ellipsoids; and wherein the determined locations of the first area and the second area are set as the points on the surface at which the plurality of pores are to be formed. (Paulsen. Column 8, Lines 45-55, “(33) FIG. 6 shows a flow diagram of an example of the surface reconstruction step S7, while FIG. 10 illustrates different sub-steps of an example of the surface reconstruction step. The surface reconstruction step receives the local surface representations as an input, i.e. in one embodiment the local ellipsoids. In an initial step S71, the process performs a connectivity analysis so as to remove outliers. To this end, the process groups the local surface representations into connected clusters, e.g. by means of a flood-fill type graph algorithm.”)
Regarding Claim 8: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9: See rejection for claim 4.
Regarding Claim 10: See rejection for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11: See rejection for claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12: Paulsen does not explicitly recite The method of claim 11, further comprising: causing a 3D fabrication system to fabricate the item via 3D printing such that the plurality of pores are formed at the determined locations.
However E discloses The method of claim 11, further comprising: causing a 3D fabrication system to fabricate the item via 3D printing such that the plurality of pores are formed at the determined locations. (E. 3.2 Printing System An adapted version of Océ Technologies’ [53] Elevated Printing technology [54] is used for printing. The ink-jet system utilizes UV-curable inks. A transparent ink is added to the default CMYK and White ink channels, which can be used to create spatially varying gloss. This experimental printer has a build volume of 1.25 × 2.5 m (X,Y) and 5 mm(Z) height. The printing system has a planar resolution of 450 dpi (56 µm), and the smallest possible layer resolution is 2 µm”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the 3D scanning/printing/fabricating aspect of E with the 3D modeling aspect of Paulsen in order to allow for a “sufficiently fast for practical application” methodology of “physical reproduction” as well as to create “realistic reproductions.”
Regarding Claim 13: See rejection for claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15: See rejection for claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16: Paulsen does not explicitly disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to: cause a 3D fabrication system to fabricate the item via 3D printing such that the plurality of pores are formed at the determined locations.
However E discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to: cause a 3D fabrication system to fabricate the item via 3D printing such that the plurality of pores are formed at the determined locations. (E. 3.2 Printing System An adapted version of Océ Technologies’ [53] Elevated Printing technology [54] is used for printing. The ink-jet system utilizes UV-curable inks. A transparent ink is added to the default CMYK and White ink channels, which can be used to create spatially varying gloss. This experimental printer has a build volume of 1.25 × 2.5 m (X,Y) and 5 mm(Z) height. The printing system has a planar resolution of 450 dpi (56 µm), and the smallest possible layer resolution is 2 µm”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the 3D scanning/printing/fabricating aspect of E with the 3D modeling aspect of Paulsen in order to allow for a “sufficiently fast for practical application” methodology of “physical reproduction” as well as to create “realistic reproductions.”
Regarding Claim 17: See rejection for claim 16.
6. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen in view of E further in view of Yao, Qianru. "Methods and equipment for three-dimensional forming of fibre-based materials in China." (2017), hereafter Yao.
Regarding Claim 7: Paulsen and E do not explicitly recite The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the item to be fabricated comprises a screen device for a pulp molding die, the screen device including the pores.
However Yao recites The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the item to be fabricated comprises a screen device for a pulp molding die, the screen device including the pores. (Yao. Page 32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the die aspect of Yao for the modeling in Paulsen and E as it is a necessary step to ensure the proper design and quality of pulp molded products. (Yao. Page 32, bottom)
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. All Claims are rejected.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent No. 7542595 which teaches 3D model visualization using ellipsoids.
ii) U.S. Patent No. 10346504 which teaches 3D model visualization using ellipsoids.
iii) U.S. Patent No. 6787245 which teaches molded pulp substrates.
10. 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 2186
Prosecution Insights