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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 3/16/2026.
Claims 16-19 are canceled. Claims 20-24 are newly added. Claims 1-15 and 20-24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have fixed the deficiencies set forth in the previous Office Action hence the respective rejections/objections have been withdrawn, except for those rejections/objections if still maintained or newly added in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the rejections for claims under 35 U.S.C § 102/103, the arguments have been fully considered but are deemed moot, in view of new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 20-23 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 20, 21, 22 and 23 recite a limitation “generating a scan data set corresponding to the dimensional surface boundaries” wherein the term “the dimensional surface boundaries” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the term has been construed as “[[the]] dimensional surface boundaries”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Simonin (US 20200307096 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Simonin”).
joining the object to the defect to repair the vehicle exterior body surface.
Regarding claim 1, Simonin teaches:
A method for repairing a defect in a vehicle exterior body surface (FIG. 1 and [0026]) comprising:
generating a scan data set corresponding to the dimensional surface boundaries of the defect ([0028]), wherein generating the scan data set comprises:
creating radiation with a light source (FIG. 1 and [0038]: a laser light is created to scan the void 16, the reflection of the laser light is measured to determine the contour 22);
irradiating the defect with the light source (see recitations above); and
measuring a reflection of the radiation from the defect and a surrounding surface of the defect with a detector (see recitations above);
creating manufacturing data set for an object at least in part complementary to the defect from the scan data set ([0032]);
forming the object from the manufacturing data set with a layered manufacturing device ([0040]); and
joining the object to the defect to repair the vehicle exterior body surface ([0040]).
Simonin teaches specifically (underlines are added by Examiner for emphasis):
PNG
media_image1.png
614
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0026] Referring to the Figures, wherein like reference numerals refer to like elements, a repair system 10 and method 12 of repairing a substrate 14 having a damaged portion 114 defining avoid 16 and having a void surface 214 are shown generally in FIGS. 1 and 2. The repair system10 and method 12 may be useful for repairing damaged substrates 14 that are cracked, scratched, dented, nicked, torn, and/or define a hole 216 (FIG. 4B) completely through the substrate 14. In particular, the repair system 10 and method 12 may be useful for repairing the substrate 14 in situ, i.e., without removing the substrate 14 from a device before repairing the substrate 14. As shown in FIG. 3, in one non-limiting example, the substrate 14 may be an interior surface of a vehicle that is scratched or perforated. In another non-limiting example shown in FIG. 5, the substrate 14 may be an exterior panel of a vehicle, such as a quarter panel, door panel, decklid, hood, roof, fender, and the like, that is dented or punctured. As such, the repair system 10 and method 12 may be useful for repairing automotive vehicles such as a passenger car, sport utility vehicle, or truck. Alternatively, the repair system 10 and method 12 may be useful for repairing another vehicle type, such as, but not limited to, an industrial vehicle, a recreational off-road vehicle, a motorcycle, an airplane and the like. However, the repair system 10 and method 12 may also be useful for repairing substrates 14for non-automotive applications, such as cabinetry, furniture, and building exteriors.
[0028] As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the repair system 10 also includes a scanning system 20 configured for determining a contour 22 of the void surface 214. That is, the contour 22 of the void surface 214 may follow a deformed surface of the substrate 14 and define a shape of the void surface 214. The scanning system 20 may include, for example, a laser 24 configured to traverse the void 16 and thereby map the contour 22. Alternatively, the scanning system 20may include a sensor or optical eye (not shown) configured for determining the contour 22 of the void surface 214. The scanning system 20 may also include memory configured for storing data associated with the contour 22 and one or more processors configured for manipulating the data.
[0032] In another embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, the additive manufacturing system 26 maybe characterized as a standalone apparatus and may not be attached to the substrate 14. For this embodiment, the scanning system 20 may produce or create a set of instructions 36 readable by the additive manufacturing system 26 that is configured for additively manufacturing 38 the patch 30. For example, the set of instructions 36 may be a computer-aided design data file that may include data regarding a size, contour 22, depth, width, volume, and/or height of the damaged portion 114 and void surface 214. Further, the set of instructions 36 may include data regarding the material, color, sheen, etc. of the substrate 14 and/or the plurality of individual layers 28 required to form the patch 30. The set of instructions 36 may be transmitted to and/or read by the additive manufacturing system 26.
[0038] Referring again to FIGS. 1 and 2, the method 12 of repairing the substrate 14 includes scanning 42 the substrate 14 with the scanning system 20 to thereby determine the contour 22 of the void surface 214. As set forth above, the method 12 may also include, prior to scanning 42, mounting 44 the scanning system 20 to the substrate 14 adjacent to the void 16. Scanning 42 may include ascertaining or determining the contour 22 by reading the contour 22 with a laser. Alternatively, scanning 42 may include reflecting a sound wave or light off the contour 22 to determine the contour 22.
[0040] In one embodiment, additively manufacturing 38 may include printing the plurality of individual layers 28 directly into the void 16 to thereby form the patch 30 in situ. That is, additively manufacturing 38 may include ejecting the material, such as liquid molecules or powder grains, from the print heads 34 to thereby deposit the material and form the plurality of individual layers 28 within the void 16. Alternatively, in another embodiment, additively manufacturing 38 may include forming the patch 30 external to the void 16 before attaching 46 the patch 30.
Regarding claim 3, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on
Simonin further teaches:
the scan data set is generated with light detection and ranging ([0038]: “scanning 42 may include reflecting a sound wave or light off the contour 22 to determine the contour 22”).
Regarding claim 12, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Simonin further teaches:
the joining of the object to the defect is through an intermediate adhesive therebetween ([0034]: “As such, the repair system 10 also includes an attachment material 40 disposed in contact with the patch 30 and the substrate 14 such that the patch 30 fills the void 16. For this embodiment, the attachment material 40 may be an adhesive”).
Regarding claim 15, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Simonin further teaches:
applying an overlayer of a primer or paint on the object alone or in combination with adjacent regions of the vehicle exterior body surface ([0036]: “the patch 30 may be painted or colorized subsequent to attaching 46 (FIG. 2) to the substrate 14 to match an appearance and/or texture of the substrate 14”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of ALBERT (US 20160297149 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “ALBERT”).
Regarding claim 2, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach the scan data set is generated with a smartphone or a tablet.
However, ALBERT teaches in an analogous art:
scan data set is generated with a smartphone (500 in FIG. 5 and [0063]: “A 3D scanning and printing system 500 is shown including a smart phone 502 associated with a 3D printer device 504. When a scan is completed by the system 500, a 3D printer file 506 is generated”) or a tablet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of ALBERT, to make the method wherein the scan data set is generated with a smartphone or a tablet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to make the repairing system “portable”, as ALBERT teaches in [0002].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of NAKAJIMA (US 20240189859 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “NAKAJIMA”).
Regarding claim 4, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach the scan data set has a resolution of 0.05 to 0.1 mm.
However, NAKAJIMA teaches in an analogous art:
the scan data set has a resolution of 0.05 to 0.1 mm ([0052]: “the entire interior of the syringe is subjected to 3D scanning using the industrial X-ray CT apparatus, for example, at a scanning resolution of 0.083 mm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of NAKAJIMA, to make the method wherein the scan data set has a resolution of 0.05 to 0.1 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it is a common practice of the industry.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of Lacagnina (US 20170142276 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Lacagnina”).
Regarding claim 5, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach wirelessly transmitting the scan data set to a manufacturing processor as input for the manufacturing data set.
However, Lacagnina teaches in an analogous art:
wirelessly transmitting the scan data set to a manufacturing processor as input for the manufacturing data set (FIG. 1A and [0173]: the 3D image capture device 20 wirelessly transmits the scan data to a manufacturing processor in the cloud 40 to generate printable work file, i.e., the manufacturing data set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of Lacagnina, to make the method to further comprise wirelessly transmitting the scan data set to a manufacturing processor as input for the manufacturing data set. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help build a “mobile and portable networked system to automate and optimize the capture of images”, as Lacagnina suggests in [0172].
Regarding claim 6, Simonin-Lacagnina teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Lacagnina further teaches:
the manufacturing processor is remote from the location of scanning at a central site (FIG. 1A and [0173]: the manufacturing processor in the cloud 40 is at a central site remote from the 3D image capture device 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Simonin based on the teaching of Lacagnina, to make the method wherein the manufacturing processor is remote from the vehicle exterior body surface at a central site. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help build a “mobile and portable networked system to automate and optimize the capture of images”, as Lacagnina suggests in [0172].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of CALVIN (US 20240190067 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “CALVIN”).
Regarding claim 7, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach the object is formed from a thermoplastic.
However, CALVIN teaches in an analogous art:
object is formed from a thermoplastic ([0002]: “Material Extrusion 3D printing includes any additive manufacturing technique that heats, extrudes and deposits thermoplastic material onto a build surface a layer at a time until the desired object results”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of CALVIN, to make the method wherein the object is formed from a thermoplastic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help produce a 3D object “with complex shapes or on demand”, as CALVIN suggests in [0002].
Regarding claim 8, Simonin-CALVIN teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
CALVIN further teaches:
the thermoplastic is one of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polylactic acid (PLA), high impact polystyrene (HIPS), polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), polyamide, acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA), polycarbonate, ethylene vinyl acetate, poly(anhydrides), polyorthoesters, or copolymers in which any of the aforementioned are present in an amount of at least 30% of the monomer subunits thereof ([0010] and [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Simonin based on the teaching of CALVIN, to make the method wherein the thermoplastic is one of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polylactic acid (PLA), high impact polystyrene (HIPS), polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), polyamide, acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA), polycarbonate, ethylene vinyl acetate, poly(anhydrides), polyorthoesters, or copolymers in which any of the aforementioned are present in an amount of at least 30% of the monomer subunits thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help produce a 3D object “with complex shapes or on demand”, as CALVIN suggests in [0002].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of Seubert (US 20210331394 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Seubert”).
Regarding claim 9, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach the object is formed from a UV curable resin.
However, Seubert teaches in an analogous art:
the object is formed from a UV curable resin ([0027]: “The parts 50 may be formed from the UV curable resin 51”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of Seubert, to make the method wherein the object is formed from a UV curable resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help produce a 3D object.
Claims 10, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of Pina (US 20210230878 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Pina”).
Regarding claim 10, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein.
However, Pina teaches in an analogous art:
the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein (FIG.s 3C and 3D, and [0094]: “As shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D, the aperture 134 may be used to receive a mechanical fastener that secures siding attachment accessory 110 to a support structure”; And [0096]: “the siding attachment accessory is formed by another method, for example extrusion, casting, machining, punching, or additive manufacturing, such as 3D-printing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of Pina, to make the method wherein the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “secure” the object, as Pina teaches in [0094].
Regarding claim 13, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach the joining of the object to the defect is through a fastener simultaneously engaging the object and the vehicle exterior body surface.
However, Pina teaches in an analogous art:
joining of the object a part is through a fastener simultaneously engaging the object and the part (FIG.s 3C and 3D, and [0094]: “As shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D, the aperture 134 may be used to receive a mechanical fastener that secures siding attachment accessory 110 to a support structure”; And [0096]: “the siding attachment accessory is formed by another method, for example extrusion, casting, machining, punching, or additive manufacturing, such as 3D-printing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of Pina, to make the method wherein the joining of the object to the defect is through a fastener simultaneously engaging the object and the vehicle exterior body surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “secure” the object, as Pina teaches in [0094].
Regarding claim 21, Simonin teaches:
A method for repairing a defect in a vehicle exterior body surface (FIG. 1 and [0026]) comprising:
generating a scan data set corresponding to dimensional surface boundaries of the defect ([0028]);
creating manufacturing data set for an object at least in part complementary to the defect from the scan data set ([0032]);
forming the object from the manufacturing data set with a layered manufacturing device ([0040]),
joining the object to the defect to repair the vehicle exterior body surface ([0040]).
Simonin teaches all the limitations except the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein; the joining of the object to the defect is through a fastener simultaneously engaging the object and the vehicle exterior body surface.
However, Pina teaches in an analogous art:
the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein (FIG.s 3C and 3D, and [0094]: “As shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D, the aperture 134 may be used to receive a mechanical fastener that secures siding attachment accessory 110 to a support structure”; And [0096]: “the siding attachment accessory is formed by another method, for example extrusion, casting, machining, punching, or additive manufacturing, such as 3D-printing”);
joining of the object a part is through a fastener simultaneously engaging the object and the part (FIG.s 3C and 3D, and [0094]: “As shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D, the aperture 134 may be used to receive a mechanical fastener that secures siding attachment accessory 110 to a support structure”; And [0096]: “the siding attachment accessory is formed by another method, for example extrusion, casting, machining, punching, or additive manufacturing, such as 3D-printing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of Pina, to make the method wherein the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein; and the joining of the object to the defect is through a fastener simultaneously engaging the object and the vehicle exterior body surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “secure” the object, as Pina teaches in [0094].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of LECTION (US 20180059644 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “LECTION”).
Regarding claim 11, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach verifying dimensions of the object relative to the scan data set corresponding to the dimensional surface boundaries of the defect.
However, LECTION teaches in an analogous art:
verifying dimensions of the object relative to a target data set (FIG. 9 and [0075]: “Turning to FIG. 9, a flowchart diagram of an exemplary method 900 for 3D printing an object, or more particularly for verifying and modifying a 3D printing process, is illustrated. Method 900 begins (step 902) with the initiation of a 3D printing process. During the 3D printing process (e.g., before the completion of the 3D printing process), the partially completed 3D printed object is scanned (step 904). As described above, the scanning may be performed with sensors, such as ultrasonic modules and/or cameras, coupled to (e.g., housed within) the 3D printer. Based on the scanning of the partially completed 3D printed object (i.e., the data collected during the scanning), a shape (and/or size and/or structural integrity) of the partially completed 3D printed object is determined (step 906). A holographic object is then generated (or caused to be generated) based on the determined shape of the partially completed 3D printed object (step 908)”. This teaches to verify sizes/dimensions of a partially printed object to check if it meets a target requirement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of LECTION, to make the method to further comprise verifying dimensions of the object relative to the scan data set corresponding to the dimensional surface boundaries of the defect. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “provide the user with real-time information regarding the current state of the printed object”, as LECTION suggests in [0019].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of RUDD (US 20260036528 A1, hereinafter as “RUDD”).
Regarding claim 24, Simonin teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach collecting multiple images with like or different wavelengths with the detector and stitching the images together.
However, RUDD teaches in an analogous art:
collecting multiple images with like or different wavelengths with the detector and stitching the images together ([0080]: “the wavelength of light emitted by the lighting arrays 30 cycles through the different predetermined wavelengths of the light emitters 32. Each image or frame therefore comprises spatial data and intensity data at a single predetermined wavelength. Preferably the speed of travel or movement of the inspection assembly 10 through the conduit and the frame rate of the cameras 24 are chosen so that for a system capturing images at n different wavelengths there is overlap between the first image and the (nth+1) image such that images captured at the same wavelength of light can subsequently be mosaiced or “stitched” together to form a complete image of the internal surface of the conduit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of RUDD, to make the method to further comprise collecting multiple images with like or different wavelengths with the detector and stitching the images together. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to get “a complete image”, as RUDD teaches in [0080].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of Pina, and in further view of Zander (US 20230218319 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Zander”).
Regarding claim 14, Simonin-Pina teach to join the object to vehicle exterior body surface through a fastener (see rejection of claim 13), but don’t teach the fastener, i.e., another object at least in part complementary to the defect and the object is also formed by 3D printing.
However, Zander teaches to print a fastener using 3D printer (FIG. 1A and [0044]: “the fastener 10 can be manufactured by 3D printing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin-Pina based on the teaching of Zander, to make the method to further comprise forming another object at least in part complementary to the defect and the object and joining the other object to vehicle exterior body surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help parts be “connected together”, as Zander suggests in [0044].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of Pina, and in further view of LECTION.
Regarding claim 20, Simonin teaches:
A method for repairing a defect in a vehicle exterior body surface (FIG. 1 and [0026]) comprising:
generating a scan data set corresponding to dimensional surface boundaries of the defect ([0028]);
creating manufacturing data set for an object at least in part complementary to the defect from the scan data set ([0032]);
forming the object from the manufacturing data set with a layered manufacturing device ([0040]),
joining the object to the defect to repair the vehicle exterior body surface ([0040]).
Simonin teaches all the limitations except the object formed with a void therein is configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein; and verifying dimensions of the object relative to the scan data set corresponding to the dimensional surface boundaries of the defect.
However, Pina teaches in an analogous art:
the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein (FIG.s 3C and 3D, and [0094]: “As shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D, the aperture 134 may be used to receive a mechanical fastener that secures siding attachment accessory 110 to a support structure”; And [0096]: “the siding attachment accessory is formed by another method, for example extrusion, casting, machining, punching, or additive manufacturing, such as 3D-printing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of Pina, to make the method wherein the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “secure” the object, as Pina teaches in [0094].
Simonin-Pina teaches all the limitations except verifying dimensions of the object relative to the scan data set corresponding to the dimensional surface boundaries of the defect.
However, LECTION teaches in an analogous art:
verifying dimensions of the object relative to a target data set (FIG. 9 and [0075]: “Turning to FIG. 9, a flowchart diagram of an exemplary method 900 for 3D printing an object, or more particularly for verifying and modifying a 3D printing process, is illustrated. Method 900 begins (step 902) with the initiation of a 3D printing process. During the 3D printing process (e.g., before the completion of the 3D printing process), the partially completed 3D printed object is scanned (step 904). As described above, the scanning may be performed with sensors, such as ultrasonic modules and/or cameras, coupled to (e.g., housed within) the 3D printer. Based on the scanning of the partially completed 3D printed object (i.e., the data collected during the scanning), a shape (and/or size and/or structural integrity) of the partially completed 3D printed object is determined (step 906). A holographic object is then generated (or caused to be generated) based on the determined shape of the partially completed 3D printed object (step 908)”. This teaches to verify sizes/dimensions of a partially printed object to check if it meets a target requirement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin-Pina based on the teaching of LECTION, to make the method to further comprise verifying dimensions of the object relative to the scan data set corresponding to the dimensional surface boundaries of the defect. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “provide the user with real-time information regarding the current state of the printed object”, as LECTION suggests in [0019].
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonin in view of Pina, and in further view of Seubert.
Regarding claim 22, Simonin teaches:
A method for repairing a defect in a vehicle exterior body surface (FIG. 1 and [0026]) comprising:
generating a scan data set corresponding to dimensional surface boundaries of the defect ([0028]);
creating manufacturing data set for an object at least in part complementary to the defect from the scan data set ([0032]);
forming the object from the manufacturing data set with a layered manufacturing device ([0040]);
joining the object to the defect to repair the vehicle exterior body surface ([0040]).
Simonin teaches all the limitations except the object is formed from a UV curable resin; forming another object at least in part complementary to the defect and the object and joining the other object to vehicle exterior body surface.
However, Pina teaches in an analogous art:
another object at least in part complementary to a part and the object (FIG.s 3C and 3D, and [0094]: “As shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D, the aperture 134 may be used to receive a mechanical fastener that secures siding attachment accessory 110 to a support structure”. This teaches another object, i.e., a fastener, which is in part complementary to an object, i.e., siding attachment 110 and a part of support structure); and
joining the object to the part and joining the other object to the part (FIG.s 3C and 3D, and [0094]: “As shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D, the aperture 134 may be used to receive a mechanical fastener that secures siding attachment accessory 110 to a support structure”. This teaches the object/(siding attachment 110), the other object/(the fastener) are joined to the part of support structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of Pina, to make the method wherein another object at least in part complementary to the defect and the object; and joining the object to the defect and joining the other object to vehicle exterior body surface to repair the vehicle exterior body surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “secure” the object, as Pina teaches in [0094].
Simonin-Pina teaches all the limitations except the object is formed from a UV curable resin; and forming the another object.
However, Seubert teaches in an analogous art:
the object is formed from a UV curable resin ([0027]: “The parts 50 may be formed from the UV curable resin 51”).
Since an object can be formed from a UV curable resin as taught by Sebert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin-Pina based on the teaching of Seubert, to make the method wherein the object is formed from a UV curable resin; and forming another object at least in part complementary to the defect and the object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help produce a 3D object.
Regarding claim 23, Simonin teaches:
A method for repairing a defect in a vehicle exterior body surface (FIG. 1 and [0026]) comprising:
generating a scan data set corresponding to dimensional surface boundaries of the defect ([0028]);
creating manufacturing data set for an object at least in part complementary to the defect from the scan data set ([0032]);
forming the object from the manufacturing data set with a layered manufacturing device ([0040]); and
joining the object to the defect to repair the vehicle exterior body surface ([0040]).
Simonin teaches all the limitations except the object is formed from a UV curable resin and formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein.
However, Pina teaches in an analogous art:
the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein (FIG.s 3C and 3D, and [0094]: “As shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D, the aperture 134 may be used to receive a mechanical fastener that secures siding attachment accessory 110 to a support structure”; And [0096]: “the siding attachment accessory is formed by another method, for example extrusion, casting, machining, punching, or additive manufacturing, such as 3D-printing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin based on the teaching of Pina, to make the method wherein the object is formed with a void therein configured to receive an insert or a fastener therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “secure” the object, as Pina teaches in [0094].
Simonin-Pina teach all the limitations except the object is formed from a UV curable resin.
However, Seubert teaches in an analogous art:
the object is formed from a UV curable resin ([0027]: “The parts 50 may be formed from the UV curable resin 51”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simonin-Pina based on the teaching of Seubert, to make the method wherein the object is formed from a UV curable resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help produce a 3D object.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights