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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 9, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 21 “is” should be deleted (the line immediately above Formula (3)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are resolved (with the exception of the above objection) and the rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 5112667) in view of Haenselmann et al (the article entitled “Optimal strategies for creating paper models from 3D objects”).
Li et al taught that it was known to form a three dimensional object (a helmet in this instance) from prepreg plies each of which are formed from unidirectional reinforcing filaments embedded in a polymer matrix material. The reference taught that at least two prepreg sheets were cut with a set of cuts therein and the sheets were stacked and consolidated to form the 3D object wherein the cuts of separate sheets were not overlapped with one another (the cuts of one prepreg sheet was offset from the cuts of the next sheet in the assembly so that the seams were staggered from one another in the finished three dimensional assembly. The reference did not express that one would have utilized a cutting graph for facilitation of the determination of the cuts in the sheet material therein when severing the sheets of material prior to the molding operation therein nor that all cuts were along polyhedral facets. The applicant is more specifically referred to column 1, lines 58-68, column 3, lines 29-47, column 3, line 62-column 4, line 25, and the examples therein.
Haenselmann taught that one skilled in the art of creating 3D object from 2D sheets that there were optimal ways for cutting (and folding the sheets) to obtain an optimal performance in the rendering of the object. The reference recognized that such objects were understood to be reinforced, see page 520, the left column, the first full paragraph of the left column therein. The reference to Haenselmann suggested that those skilled in the art would have used a minimum spanning tree of the cutting graph to cut the 2D sheets for best use in the model therein, see page 523, the first two full paragraphs of the left column. The ordinary artisan additionally would have readily understood that the cutting graph and sheets themselves would have corresponded to a polyhedral mesh of the 3D target object, see Figures 5 and 9. Haenselmann taught the use of tabs to assist in the gluing of the sheet to render the 3D object therein. It should additionally be noted that the reference additionally suggested that the minimum number of cuts would have been determined by reducing the graph to a tree by means of the Kruskal algorithm , see the paragraph bridging the left and right columns of page 523. Indeed, the reference to Haenselmann suggested the manner in which one skilled in the art would have determined where the provide cuts in the sheet material of Li et al in order to minimize wrinkling in the final 3D object and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the processing of Haenselmann et al to determine the appropriate cutting scheme for the sheets where the most efficient cutting was performed for the individual sheets in Li et al in order to form a three dimensional object therein using the operation of Li et al where sheets were offset at the cut areas so that no seams overlapped and heat and pressure applied to the sheets to render a 3D product. Regarding claim 21, Haenselmann teaches that the object may be folded for assembly (p. 527).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection.
Li and Haenselmann are discussed above. They also teach equations (1) and (2): conceptually that the union of all edges makes up the mesh and that no edges overlap. They do not fairly teach or suggest that the maximum number of 2-D sheets used (which, in context, is the actual number of sheets used) should specifically be the integer part of (the total number of edges for the polyhedral mesh)/(the number of cuts in each 2-D sheet).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see p. 7, filed 1/30/26, with respect to claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
It is noted that independent claim 21 was intended as rejected under 35 USC 103 over Li in view of Haenselmann. See pp. 3-5, especially the last two lines above the “Allowable Subject Matter” section, but it was not included in the header. No arguments were filed relevant to claim 21. Prosecution is reopened to clearly reject independent claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached on 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights