SHOE UPPER DESIGN MODEL GENERATING METHOD, SYSTEM AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIA

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 . Claims 1-21 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 04/20/2023. Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al. Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of NPL: “COMPUTERIZED MODELING TECHNOLOGY OF UNIQUE FOOTWEAR SURFACE MANUFACTURING DESIGN” by SABALIAUSKAS (2017). Claim(s) 3-5, 10-13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of NPL: “Rapid parametric design methods for shoe-last customization” by Wang et al., in further view of NPL: “Development of Orthopedic Insoles and Shoes 3D Design Process for Atypical Foot Morphologies” by Mishra et al., in further view of NPL: “A computer-aided design system for foot-feature-based shoe last customization” by Xiong et al., in further view of NPL: “A Digitally-enabled Integrated Approach to Design and Manufacture Shoe Lasts” by Marconi et al. Claim(s) 7, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of USPGPUB No. US20190286760A1 by Suessmuth et al. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of NPL: “Rapid parametric design methods for shoe-last customization” by Wang et al., in further view of NPL: “Development of Orthopedic Insoles and Shoes 3D Design Process for Atypical Foot Morphologies” by Mishra et al., in further view of NPL: “A computer-aided design system for foot-feature-based shoe last customization” by Xiong et al., in further view of NPL: “A Digitally-enabled Integrated Approach to Design and Manufacture Shoe Lasts” by Marconi et al in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of USPGPUB No. US20190286760A1 by Suessmuth et al. This action is made Non-Final. ---- This page is left blank after this line ---- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al. Regarding Claim 1 Azariadis teaches A shoe upper design model generating method, comprising the following steps: ([Abstract]: “This paper introduces a method for applying texture from a two-dimensional domain to a three-dimensional surface which is divided into two stages: the pre-processing stage, where a proper planar development of the three-dimensional surface is generated and the stage of mapping texture from the plane to the given surface. Several techniques for generating planar developments are studied and a new technique for surface fattening is proposed. Using this technique it is possible to control the local mapping accuracy. A new mapping method and a set of indices for evaluating the mapping accuracy are proposed. The accuracy indices are derived through the numerical method of singular-value decomposition. To reduce aliasing a space-variant filter, which can be incorporated within the two stages of the introduced texture mapping technique is developed. Finally, various applications are worked out to illustrate the effectiveness of the techniques proposed in this paper.” [FIG. 1a-c]: PNG media_image1.png 493 626 media_image1.png Greyscale See also [p. 541 §3.1], [p. 549 §6], [FIG. 8], [FIG. 10-11 a-b], [p. 553 Table 1] for support. The examiner interprets where A shoe upper design model generating method is shown in a method for texture mapping and CAD pattern design on curved surfaces using planar development; Specifically, demonstrating the method on a triangulated 3D model of a shoe last to generate shoe upper patterns.) using a processor to provide a 2D mapping boundary([p. 544 §3.5]: “... In Fig. 4a, the three-dimensional surface of the outer half of a shoe last is shown. For the flattening of this part of the shoe it is required to preserve several local geometric characteristics of the three-dimensional surface, such as the arc length of the curves shown in bold in Fig. 4a (the determination of all the constraints that are taken into consideration at the manufacturing process of shoes is beyond the scope of this paper)...” [FIG. 4a]: PNG media_image2.png 458 346 media_image2.png Greyscale See [p. 541 §3.1] for support. The examiner interprets where a processor to provide a 2D mapping boundary is shown in a 2D planar development (mapping boundary) corresponding to the outer half or full surface of a shoe last.) using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft; (See [p. 541 §3.1] & [FIG. 4a]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft is shown in a 3D triangulated mesh model of a shoe last (3D last draft) and isolating the upper surface of the last (the 3D upper model) using the processor to execute a flattening algorithm on the 3D upper with respect to the 2D mapping boundary, and constructing a mapping relation between the 3D upper and the 2D mapping boundary at the same time; (See [p. 544 §3.5], [ §1]: “…However, the most common form of texture mapping involves the use of a two-dimensional texture domain, since there is an inherent difficulty to define three-dimensional texture entries using a generalized and efficient method for any kind of texture pattern [8]. Most of the techniques for texture mapping from a two-dimensional domain to an arbitrarily curved surface it is assumed that the texture domain is defined in a planar rectangular area 0 < u < ua and 0 < v < va. Thus, every point (u, v) is transformed into a point (x, y, z) of a 3D surface, which is then projected to a point (xs , ys ) on the output screen. If f is a transformation from (u, v) to (x, y, z) and p a projection from (x, y, z) to (xs , ys ), then g(u, v) = p( f (u, v)) is a mapping from the texture domain to the screen plane. ... The first function S : (u, v) →(x’, y’, z’) maps a texture point (u, v) to a point (x’, y’, z’) on a simple intermediate three-dimensional surface... In general, an approximate local isometry can be derived through the generation of a planar development of the three-dimensional surface. Such an approach has been adopted in [13-16]. A technique based on the concept of the geodesic curvature to unfold the isoparametric curves of the three-dimensional surface grid and to perform a relaxation process to the resulting flattened surface is proposed in [15]. .. In this paper a new method for applying texture to an arbitrarily three-dimensional surface is proposed. The method is divided into two stages: (a) the pre-processing stage where an approximate local isometry between a three-dimensional surface and the plane is generated and (b) the stage of texture mapping from the plane onto the three-dimensional surface… A new technique for deriving planar developments based on global optimization incorporating local constraints is proposed. Using this technique it is possible to control the local quality of the texture mapping. This method also addresses some of the drawbacks of the previous methods for surface flattening based on global optimization. The second stage of the proposed method for texture mapping is discussed in the second part of this paper where a new technique for the determination of invertible mappings from the two-dimensional to the three-dimensional space is presented. ...” [§4]: “.. Thus, we assume that each three-dimensional surface has a corresponding planar development with a one-to-one correspondence of triangles and vertices. A new mapping technique based on a set of linear mappings is described in the following. This function is decomposed into a number of linear mappings, which map points from the three-dimensional surface into the planar development and vice versa. The number of these mappings is equal to the number of triangles which are used to approximate the three-dimensional surface. One mapping is defined for each pair of corresponding triangles - that is a triangle T3 on the three-dimensional surface with its corresponding triangle T2 on the plane- as it is shown in Fig. 5. The mapping M23 and its inverse M32 are described, as those that map every point from the triangle on the plane to the triangle on the curved surface and vice versa.” [FIG. 5]: PNG media_image3.png 638 746 media_image3.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where using the processor to execute a flattening algorithm on the 3D upper with respect to the 2D mapping boundary, and constructing a mapping relation between the 3D upper and the 2D mapping boundary at the same time is shown in using a processor to execute a global optimization surface-flattening algorithm (such as constraint-satisfying energy minimization) on the 3D shoe last upper. During the flattening process, the processor constructs a bidirectional coordinate mapping relation (M32 and M23 matrices) between each corresponding 3D mesh triangle and 2D planar triangle at the same time.) using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, (See [FIG 4 a-b]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary is shown in the boundary of the 2D flattened planar development of the last represents the pattern boundary of the upper.) using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary, (See [§6 & FIG. 8]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary is shown in a user drawing a design sketch (drawing) directly on the 2D planar development (which lies on the 2D upper boundary).) and using the processor to map grids in the 2D upper design area onto grids in the 3D upper via the mapping relation, thereby obtaining an upper design model containing the mapping relation between the 2D upper design area and the 3D upper. (See [§4], [§6], [FIG. 5], [FIG. 8], [§4.1-4.2]: “We define a 3 × 3 matrix T3 using the coordinates of the three vertices A3(X1,Y1,Z1), B3(X2,Y2,Z2) and C3(X3,Y3,Z3) of the triangle T3 as PNG media_image4.png 118 512 media_image4.png Greyscale In a similar fashion we define a matrix T2 which represents the vertices A2(x1, y1,0), B2(x2, y2,0) and C2(x3, y3,0) of the triangle T2 as PNG media_image5.png 110 508 media_image5.png Greyscale The required mapping M32 expressed in a matrix form is then given by, PNG media_image6.png 32 502 media_image6.png Greyscale Care has to be taken in determining the inverse of T3. If the matrix T3 is singular (determinant equal or very close to zero) then it is not invertible. However, singularity can be avoided by a simple spatial rotation of the corresponding triangle or using the adjoint matrix. Such a case is described in the next section where the mapping M23 is defined. Note that the third row of M32 is zero and thus only the remaining six non-zero elements have to be stored. Each point P3 = [X Y Z]T on the triangle T3 is mapped into a point P2 = [x y 0]T of the triangle T2 through, PNG media_image7.png 34 508 media_image7.png Greyscale In a similar fashion this transformation is given by PNG media_image8.png 32 498 media_image8.png Greyscale However, the matrix T2 cannot be inverted in its current form. If we solve this problem using the adjoint matrix T 2 P then we derive a mapping between the triangle T2 and the projection T 3 p of the triangle T3 in the plane. Therefore, a second mapping is required to map T 3 p into the triangle T3. Another way to overcome this problem is to use a fixed rotation matrix R and derive an equal triangle T 2 ' through a simple spatial rotation of T2. Finally, the mapping M23 is obtained by PNG media_image9.png 34 508 media_image9.png Greyscale Each point P2 = [x y 0]T on the triangle T2 is mapped into a point P3 = [X Y Z]T of the triangle T3 through, PNG media_image10.png 28 500 media_image10.png Greyscale Given a curved surface and an appropriate set of the previous mappings it is straightforward to perform texture mapping between the curved surface and a two-dimensional texture domain. ...” The examiner interprets where using the processor to map grids in the 2D upper design area onto grids in the 3D upper via the mapping relation, thereby obtaining an upper design model containing the mapping relation between the 2D upper design area and the 3D upper is shown in using the processor to map grids (triangular elements and their internal pixel coordinates) in the 2D design area onto the corresponding grids (triangles) in the 3D shoe upper via the pre-constructed affine mapping transformations (M23). This projects the 2D sketch onto the 3D upper model in real-time, resulting in a 3D upper design model containing the coordinate mapping relation.) Azariadis does not explicitly name the boundary curves of the shoe last as a "feather edge," "heel line," and "collar line" However, Raffaeli further teaches the 2D mapping boundary ([p.147 §5.4]: “… 1. Last upper surfaces is divided in two half, the internal and external one; 2. The side of each curve is recognised and projected on the right surface; 3. The two parts are flattened and overlapped in a common orientation thanks to some rotation and mirror transformations; 4. Curves follow the same transformations of flattening and orientation;.. The result is shown in Fig. 17. Then curves are used as boundaries for leather pieces extraction. Offsets operations are used to allow material overlapping for stitching purpose.” [FIG. 17]: PNG media_image11.png 360 623 media_image11.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where a first last feather edge and a second last feather edge is shown in the shoe last upper divided into internal (medial) and external (lateral) halves as the boundaries of these surfaces.). Raffaeli teaches a first last feather edge, (See [FIG. 17], [p.140 §3.1]: “… Curves are transferred into CAD system as digitised points by using a mouse and a dedicated graphics tablet. The resulting engineered model is showed in Fig. 4. Operations are related to: • redraw, split, smooth and fair curves; • draw internal (usually red) curves out of external (black) ones: this operation requires some curves translations or offsets; • translate curves in order to compensate leather deformability when stretched; • offset curves in order to allow extra leather when overlapping and stitching pieces. All upper pieces are then defined using curves as boundaries. Moreover information is added for stitching and lining by means of dashed lines. Then, plotters can be used both to print paper and pasteboard patterns as the ones shown in Fig. 5. The same information can be sent to automatic leather cutting tables to cut pieces to be used to manufacture a shoe prototype.” [FIG. 2-5] [FIG. 4]: PNG media_image12.png 331 625 media_image12.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where a first last feather edge, and a second last feather edge is shown in the boundaries of the internal (medial) and external (lateral) halves comprising standard anatomical curves including first and second "feather curves" (last feather edges) bordering the sole) a first heel line, (See [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5, 17]: The examiner interprets where a first heel line, and a second heel line is shown in the boundaries of the internal (medial) and external (lateral) halves comprising standard anatomical curves including first and second "back/heel curves" (heel lines)) a first collar line, ([p.142 §4]: “... These curves include base edge curves and ankle curves; they are necessary for the subsequent phase of surface reconstruction. A semiautomated approach has been followed. Through curvature analysis, the software extracts sub-clouds of points with higher curvature. The curves are then obtained fitting the point clouds (see Fig. 9). … Typically, these modifications refer to heel height variation, length or width increment, profile curves redrawing (Fig. 10)… [FIG. 9]: PNG media_image13.png 502 627 media_image13.png Greyscale See [FIG. 7-10] for support. The examiner interprets where a first collar line and a second collar line is shown in shown in the boundaries of the internal (medial) and external (lateral) halves comprising standard anatomical curves including first and second "ankle/top curves" (collar lines) bordering the top opening.) a second collar line, (See [p.142 §4, [FIG. 7-10]: The examiner interprets where a first collar line and a second collar line is shown in shown in the boundaries of the internal (medial) and external (lateral) halves comprising standard anatomical curves including first and second "ankle/top curves" (collar lines) bordering the top opening.) a second heel line (See [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5, 17]:The examiner interprets where a first heel line, and a second heel line is shown in the boundaries of the internal (medial) and external (lateral) halves comprising standard anatomical curves including first and second "back/heel curves" (heel lines)) ) and a second last feather edge; (See [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5, 17]: The examiner interprets where a first last feather edge, and a second last feather edge is shown in the boundaries of the internal (medial) and external (lateral) halves comprising standard anatomical curves including first and second "feather curves" (last feather edges) bordering the sole) Raffaeli further teaches using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft; (See [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5], [p.144 §5.2]: “The superposition of the two models allows a mapping between the last geometry represented in NURBS form and style curves information represented in term of coloured mesh vertices. Last model determines the geometrical shape of the shoe and drives the flattening process. Besides, coloured mesh is used to extract style curves that represent the boundaries between leather pieces and thread paths. They are projected to the NURBS model in order to follow NURBS geometry during subsequent flattening process… See [Eq. 1-2] & [FIG. 12-13] for support. The examiner interprets where using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft is shown in obtaining a 3D shoe last virtual model via an optical scanner (3D last draft), and using its 3D NURBS upper geometry to drive the flattening and upper style design.) Raffaeli teaches using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, (See [p.147 §5.4] & [FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary is shown in the 3D upper halves (internal/medial and external/lateral) are flattened, rotated, mirrored, and combined in a common orientation to construct a 2D upper boundary). a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial (See [p.147 §5.4] & [FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where medial bottom line is shown in the 2D boundary comprising the medial (internal) bottom line.) a lateral (See [p.147 §5.4] & [FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where medial bottom line is shown in the 2D boundary comprising the lateral (external) bottom line.) the first heel line, (See [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5], 17: The examiner interprets where first heel line is shown in the 2D boundary comprising first heel line, and second heel line) the first collar line, (See [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5], [p.142 §4], [FIG. 7-10]: The examiner interprets where ) the first collar line is shown in the 2D boundary comprising a first collar (ankle) line, and second (ankle) collar line). a second heel line (See [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5, 17: The examiner interprets where first heel line is shown in the 2D boundary comprising first heel line, and second heel line) and the second collar line; (See [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5], [p.147 §5.4] & [FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where ) the first collar line is shown in the 2D boundary comprising a first collar (ankle) line, and second (ankle) collar line). (See [p.139 §2.2], [p.140 §3.1] [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 1 &17], [p.1 §1]: “..The shoe style can be resumed in three main factors: the last shape, the styling curves and the material used. It is fundamental to support the stylist during the characteristic curves definition and the last creation phases. When a new shoe model is defined, a number of lines, called styling curves, which determine the aesthetic appearance and the brand guidelines are created. The stylist draws such lines on a 3D plastic sheet, which is shaped like the last by means of heat and a vacuum machine (Fig. 1). Then, such lines are manually extracted from the sheet through a manual procedure of flattening and copying by a 2D scanner. Data are digitised in order to drive the leather cutting machines.. The objective of the present work is to automate these operations using a dedicated 3D CAD system in order to eliminate all process errors and iterations. Reverse engineering technology is used to import the last shape and the shoe styling model.. The second module supports the recognition of 3D shoe styling curves leading to 2D patterns to be directly employed into footwear manufacturing systems...” The examiner interprets where to create a 2D upper design area which is formed by intersection of the 2D upper boundary with the upper design drawing on it, and the 2D mapping boundary is shown in style curves (drawings) digitized on the 2D boundary, redrawn, split, and offset by a 2D CAD editor to define individual leather pattern pieces (the 2D upper design areas) bounded by the intersection of the style lines, the 2D upper boundary, and the mapping boundary) It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to Define Standard Anatomical Boundaries. A CAD system developer building the system of Azariadis would immediately recognize that to make the system practically useful for shoe pattern engineering, the boundaries of the 2D planar development must correspond to standard footwear manufacturing boundaries. To achieve this, the developer would look to the standard footwear CAD methodologies taught in Raffaeli. Integrating the "feather curves," "heel curves," and "ankle/collar curves" of Raffaeli (2011) as the boundary constraints of the flattening algorithm of Azariadis represents a routine and common-sensical application of known geometric boundary definitions to a known flattening algorithm, achieving a highly predictable, industry-standard 2D/3D CAD mapping tool. The combination of Azariadis & Raffaeli does not explicitly name the boundary curves of the shoe last as a "bottom line” However, Kozuka teaches using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial bottom line, ([0038]: “The cutting apparatus 400 is, for example, an apparatus that cuts a two-dimensional sheet such as fabric along a cutting pattern with laser beams. The cutting apparatus 400 cuts the two-dimensional sheet into a main body portion 30 and a bottom surface portion 40 of the upper. The main body portion 30 is a part of the upper located on the upper side of the shoe, seamless, and in a shape having an inner periphery 30 b on an inner side of an outer periphery 30 a. The bottom surface portion 40 is a part of the upper connected to the main body portion 30 at least a part of the outer periphery 30 a of the main body portion 30. A method of cutting is not limited to laser beams, and the two-dimensional sheet such as fabric may be cut with a blade.” [FIG. 1]: PNG media_image14.png 688 507 media_image14.png Greyscale See [0049] & [FIG. 6] for support. The examiner interprets where using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial bottom line is shown in generating a 2D pattern of the main body portion representing the upper surface where the outer periphery corresponds to the bottom surface (feather edge/bottom lines).) a lateral bottom line, (See [0038], [0049] [FIG. 1 & 6]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a lateral bottom line is shown in generating a 2D pattern of the main body portion representing the upper surface where the outer periphery corresponds to the bottom surface (feather edge/bottom lines).) the first heel line, (Taught by Raffaeli) the first collar line, ([0009]: “…. The creating a cutting pattern includes generating a two-dimensional pattern of the main body portion, the two-dimensional pattern being such a two-dimensional pattern that a portion corresponding to a topline of the shoe last is set as an inner periphery of the main body portion and a portion corresponding to a surface of the shoe last is virtually cut into a plurality of radially arranged strips, adjusting a length of each gap provided between adjacent strips in the two-dimensional pattern such that an expanded and/or shrunk shape conforms to a shape of the shoe last, and setting the outer periphery of the two-dimensional pattern including each adjusted gap as the outer periphery of the cutting pattern.” [FIG. 8]: PNG media_image15.png 362 469 media_image15.png Greyscale See [0080] for support. The examiner interprets where using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising the first collar line, and the second collar line is shown in generating a 2D pattern of the main body portion representing the upper surface where the inner periphery corresponds to the topline (collar line)) a second heel line (Taught by Raffaeli) and the second collar line; (See [0009], [0080], [FIG. 8]:The examiner interprets where using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising the first collar line, and the second collar line is shown in generating a 2D pattern of the main body portion representing the upper surface where the inner periphery corresponds to the topline (collar line)) Kozuka further teaches A shoe upper design model generating method, comprising the following steps ([Abstract]: “An upper is used for a shoe. The upper includes a main body portion located on an upper side of the shoe and a bottom surface portion connected to the main body portion at least a part of an outer periphery of the main body portion. The main body portion is seamless and in a shape having an inner periphery on an inner side of the outer periphery. The shoe includes the upper that includes the main body portion that is seamless and is in the shape having the inner periphery on the inner side of the outer periphery and a sole provided on a bottom surface portion side of the upper.” [FIG. 5]: PNG media_image16.png 1150 1048 media_image16.png Greyscale See [0009] for support. The examiner interprets where A shoe upper design model generating method, comprising the following steps is shown in a method of producing and designing a shoe upper by two-dimensionally developing 3D shoe last upper data and creating a cutting pattern.) using a processor to provide a 2D mapping boundary, (See [0009]: The examiner interprets where using a processor to provide a 2D mapping boundary is shown in the 2D pattern.) the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first last feather edge, (See [0038], [0049] [FIG. 1 & 6], [0051]: “Specifically, FIGS. 7A and 7B are schematic views for illustrating processing for developing the upper 3 in a three-dimensional shape to a two-dimensional pattern of the main body portion 30... Therefore, an outer perimeter 30 e defined by connection of a plurality of strips 30 c and a plurality of gaps 30 d in the two-dimensional pattern of the main body portion 30 shown in FIG. 7B is significantly longer than the outer periphery 40 a of the bottom surface portion 40, and it cannot be adopted as it is as the outer periphery 30 a of the main body portion 30.” [FIG. 7A-B]: PNG media_image17.png 483 344 media_image17.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first last feather edge, and a second last feather edge is shown in the 2D pattern including an outer periphery corresponding to the shoe last bottom (bottom surface/feather edge)) a first heel line, (Taught by Raffaeli) a first collar line, (See [0009], [0080], [FIG. 8], [0051], [FIG. 7A-B]: The examiner interprets where the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first collar line and a second collar line is shown in the 2D pattern including an inner periphery corresponding to the topline (collar line)) a second collar line, (See [0009], [0080], [FIG. 8], [0051], [FIG. 7A-B]: The examiner interprets where the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first collar line and a second collar line is shown in the 2D pattern including an inner periphery corresponding to the topline (collar line)) a second heel line (Taught by Raffaeli) and a second last feather edge (See [0038], [0049] [FIG. 1 & 6], [0051], [FIG. 7A-B]: The examiner interprets where the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first last feather edge, and a second last feather edge is shown in the 2D pattern including an outer periphery corresponding to the shoe last bottom (bottom surface/feather edge) using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft; (See [FIG. 6] & [0048]: “When the design support apparatus 100 has received the shoe last data (YES in step S103), the design support apparatus 100 computes three-dimensional (3D) shape data of the upper 3 from the shoe last data (step S104)...” The examiner interprets where using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft is shown in using a processor to compute 3D shape data of the upper 3 from shoe last data (computed from foot shape data).) using the processor to execute a flattening algorithm on the 3D upper with respect to the 2D mapping boundary, (See [0049] & [FIG. 6 & 8], [0080], [0086]: “In the embodiment described previously, a method of adjusting the length of the outer periphery 30 a of the main body portion 30 a to be in conformity with the shape of the shoe last 4 by adjusting the length of each gap 30 d in consideration of the direction of expansion and/or shrinkage and the ratio of expansion and/or shrinkage of the sheet with the simulation program 1108 is described... FIGS. 13A and 13B are schematic views showing exemplary adjustment of the length of the outer periphery 30 a of the main body portion 30 in consideration of the direction of expansion and/or shrinkage and the ratio of expansion and/or shrinkage of a sheet.” [FIG. 13 A-B]: PNG media_image18.png 772 386 media_image18.png Greyscale See [FIG. 2] for support. The examiner interprets where using the processor to execute a flattening algorithm on the 3D upper with respect to the 2D mapping boundary is shown in using a processor to two-dimensionally develop (flatten) the 3D shape data of the upper to compute a 2D pattern.) and constructing a mapping relation between the 3D upper and the 2D mapping boundary at the same time (See [FIG. 13A-B], [0087]: “Initially, as shown in FIG. 13A, the design support apparatus 100 creates the main body portion 310 in the U shape. The simulation program 1108 divides the main body portion 310 into a plurality of triangular meshes 301 by using a finite element method, and deforms the main body portion 310 to the seamless annular and hollow main body portion 30 as shown in FIG. 13B, with a restriction condition such as the direction of expansion and/or shrinkage and the ratio of expansion and/or shrinkage of the sheet, the length of the outer periphery 40 a of the bottom surface portion 40, and a heating temperature being applied to each element. ...” The examiner interprets where constructing a mapping relation between the 3D upper and the 2D mapping boundary at the same time is shown in dividing the upper into a plurality of triangular meshes (grids) and deforming them in 2D space to establish mapping transformations under constraint conditions.) using the processor to map grids in the 2D upper design area onto grids in the 3D upper via the mapping relation, (See [FIG. 13A-B], [0087]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to map grids in the 2D upper design area onto grids in the 3D upper via the mapping relation is shown in dividing the main body portion into a plurality of triangular meshes (grids) and deforming the meshes between 2D and 3D states.) thereby obtaining an upper design model containing the mapping relation between the 2D upper design area and the 3D upper. (See [FIG. 2 & 13A-A], [0086]:The examiner interprets where thereby obtaining an upper design model containing the mapping relation between the 2D upper design area and the 3D upper is shown in mapping changes and design elements back and forth.) It would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in the field of footwear CAD system development before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the mathematical flattening, bidirectional coordinate mapping, and 2D sketching framework of Azariadis (2000) with the standard anatomical side-splitting, boundary line definitions of Raffaeli (2011) and the processor-implemented cutting pattern, topline/outer periphery boundary constraints, and triangular grid deformation of Kozuka. The motivation to make this combination is driven by well-known industry design incentives and market forces, namely the universal need to automate the manual, highly error-prone translation of 3D virtual shoe lasts into 2D flat leather cutting patterns, thereby reducing shoe manufacturing costs, material waste, and prototype iteration times. A PHOSITA would look to integrate the general-purpose, high-precision mathematical coordinate mapping of Azariadis (2000) with the industry-standard boundaries and side-splitting of Raffaeli (2011) to create a robust, specialized computer-aided design platform. Slicing the shoe last upper into internal and external halves and using standard boundary lines (feather edges, heel lines, collar lines) as constraints for the unrolling algorithm yields a highly predictable, industry-standard 2D/3D CAD mapping tool that aligns with shoe drafting standards. To implement this, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Kozuka, which discloses dividing the upper main body portion into a plurality of triangular meshes (grids) and deforming them on a processor (design support apparatus 100) using a finite element method (FEM) based on restriction conditions such as material properties and boundary lines. Since both Azariadis (2000) and Kozuka rely on compatible computer systems and standard triangular grid mesh representations, combining Kozuka’s mesh deformation and topline/outer periphery boundaries with Azariadis's coordinate mapping matrices represents a routine integration of standard computer graphics and engineering principles. The resulting combination achieves the highly predictable result of projecting 2D style drawings onto 3D virtual shoe models with minimum conformal and dimensional distortion, satisfying all industry-standard boundary conditions. There is no unexpected or synergistic effect, and the method operates strictly according to the established functions of the individual prior art components. A PHOSITA would have had a high, reasonable expectation of success in executing this combination because both systems rely on compatible 3D software kernels and standardized data transfer formats. Regarding Claim 6 Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka teaches The shoe upper design model generating method according to claim 1, (See Claim 1) wherein the step of using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary further comprises: (See Azariadis: [p. 549 §6], [FIG. 8]: The examiner interprets where wherein the step of using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary further comprises is shown in using a processor to create an upper design drawing (sketch) on the unrolled planar development boundary and mapping it onto the 3D curved surface of a shoe last. See Raffaeli: [p.140 §3.1], [FIG. 2-5]: The examiner interprets where wherein the step of using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary further comprises is shown in digitizing and editing aesthetic drawings (styling curves) on the unrolled 2D boundary layout.) using the processor to create a plurality of design lines on the 2D upper boundary; (See Raffaeli: [p.140 §3.1] [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17], [p.1 §1]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to create a plurality of design lines on the 2D upper boundary is shown in using a processor to create and edit a plurality of styling curves (design lines) directly on the unrolled 2D upper boundary within a CAD workspace to establish the aesthetic design of the upper (see Section 1: "When a new shoe model is defined, a number of lines, called styling curves, which determine the aesthetic appearance... are created" [247], and Section 3.1: "A 2D CAD environment is then used... redraw, split, smooth and fair curves; draw internal curves out of external ones: this requires some curves translations or offsets". See Azariadis : {[p. 549 §6], {FIG. 8]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to create a plurality of design lines on the 2D upper boundary is shown in creating a sketch consisting of multiple lines (design lines) on the 2D planar development.) and using the processor to define a plurality of part sections which taking the 2D upper boundary and the plurality of design lines as boundaries (See Raffaeli: [p.140 §3.1] [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 4 & 5]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to define a plurality of part sections which taking the 2D upper boundary and the plurality of design lines as boundaries is shown in using the processor to define individual leather pattern pieces (the claimed part sections) for manufacturing the shoe upper, where each piece is defined and extracted taking the unrolled 2D upper boundary and the styling lines (design lines) as boundaries (see Section 3.1: "All upper pieces are then defined using curves as boundaries" , and Section 5.4: "Finally curves are exported in DXF format and imported in common 2D dedicated CAD for footwear upper engineering... Then curves are used as boundaries for leather pieces extraction"). Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the individual extracted upper pieces. See Kozuka: {[0009], [0038],[0049],[0051], [0080]}: The examiner interprets where using the processor to define a plurality of part sections which taking the 2D upper boundary and the plurality of design lines as boundaries is shown in defining individual unrolled cutting pattern pieces (part sections), such as a main body portion and a bottom surface portion, cut based on unrolled boundaries.) and generate a plurality of part section grids. (See Kozuka: {[0087], [FIG. 13 A-B]: The examiner interprets where generate a plurality of part section grids is shown in using a processor to divide a designed upper pattern piece (part section) into a plurality of triangular meshes (grids) using a finite element method (FEM) and deforming/mapping the grids under constraint conditions (see [0087]: "The simulation program 1108 divides the main body portion 310 into a plurality of triangular meshes 301 by using a finite element method, and deforms the main body portion..." and Fig. 13A. See Azariadis : {[§4], [§4.1-4.2], [§2]: “In this paper at least C2 class surfaces approximated by a grid with sufficient number of plane triangular elements are considered. In any other case, we shall explicitly refer to the parametric equation x = x ( u ,   v ) ,   u ,   v   ∈   R of the surface. Furthermore, the tri- angulation is not necessarily homogeneous, which means that the density of the triangles may vary along the object surface. When we refer to a homogeneously triangulated surface we mean that the surface is approximated by a grid of n x m vertices where each vertex is defined by the section of a u-isoparametric curve and a v-isoparametric curve of the x=x(u, v) surface. The Gaussian curvature of the surface x=x(u, v) at a point (u, v) is given by K=K1 K2 =(LN-M2)/(EG-F2), where K1 and K2 are the principal curvatures at (u, v). The scalars E, F, G and ̧, M, N are the first and the second-order fundamental quantities [18]. The surface is said to be single-curved if one of the K1 and K2 is zero everywhere or doubly curved if K1 ≠ 0 and if K2 ≠ 0 for at least one point (u,v). The Euclidean distance between two points P and Q is loosely denoted by ||Q-P||. The determinant of a matrix with columns the vectors a1,a2,. . . is denoted as det(a1 ,a2 , . . . ).” The examiner interprets where generate a plurality of part section grids is shown on the unrolled planar surface corresponding to the shoe upper consisting of a grid of triangular elements (grids) in one-to-one correspondence with 3D triangles, establishing coordinate mappings between 2D and 3D grids.) The motivation to combine is similar to the dependent claim. Regarding Claim 8 Azariadis teaches A shoe upper design model generating system, comprising: (See Azariadis: {[Abstract], [§6]}: The examiner interprets where A shoe upper design model generating system, comprising is shown in a computer-implemented CAD system running on computer workstations to perform texture mapping and pattern design on shoe lasts.) a memory for storing one or a plurality of computer programs comprising a plurality of commands; (See Azariadis: {[Abstract], [§6]}) a processor for executing the plurality of commands in order to execute the following operations: (See Azariadis: {[Abstract], [§6]}) using a processor to provide a 2D mapping boundary, the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first last feather edge, a first heel line, a first collar line, a second collar line, a second heel line and a second last feather edge; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to execute a flattening algorithm on the 3D upper with respect to the 2D mapping boundary, and constructing a mapping relation between the 3D upper and the 2D mapping boundary at the same time; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial bottom line, a lateral bottom line, the first heel line, the first collar line, a second heel line and the second collar line; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary, and to create a 2D upper design area which is formed by intersection of the 2D upper boundary with the upper design drawing on it, and the 2D mapping boundary; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) and using the processor to map grids in the 2D upper design area onto grids in the 3D upper via the mapping relation, thereby obtaining an upper design model containing the mapping relation between the 2D upper design area and the 3D upper. (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) Azariadis does not explicitly name the boundary curves of the shoe last as a "feather edge," "heel line," and "collar line" However, Raffaeli further teaches the 2D mapping boundary (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1). Raffaeli teaches a first last feather edge, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a first heel line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a first collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second heel line (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) and a second last feather edge; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1). Raffaeli further teaches using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1). Raffaeli teaches using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial a lateral ((System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to Define Standard Anatomical Boundaries. A CAD system developer building the system of Azariadis would immediately recognize that to make the system practically useful for shoe pattern engineering, the boundaries of the 2D planar development must correspond to standard footwear manufacturing boundaries. To achieve this, the developer would look to the standard footwear CAD methodologies taught in Raffaeli. Integrating the "feather curves," "heel curves," and "ankle/collar curves" of Raffaeli (2011) as the boundary constraints of the flattening algorithm of Azariadis represents a routine and common-sensical application of known geometric boundary definitions to a known flattening algorithm, achieving a highly predictable, industry-standard 2D/3D CAD mapping tool. The combination of Azariadis & Raffaeli does not explicitly name the boundary curves of the shoe last as a "bottom line” However, Kozuka further teaches A shoe upper design model generating system, comprising: (See Kozuka: {[FIG 1 & 2], [0025-0027]}: “... In the embodiment, an upper producing system that produces an upper by performing a series of processing as such will be described. FIG. 1 is a schematic view showing a configuration example of an upper producing system 10 according to the embodiment. Referring to FIG. 1, the upper producing system 10 includes a design support apparatus 100, a measuring apparatus 200 that measures a foot shape, a cutting apparatus 400 that cuts a sheet based on a cutting pattern, and a heating apparatus 500 that expands and/or shrinks the upper. Although the upper producing system 10 shown in FIG. 1 includes the measuring apparatus 200, the upper producing system 10 may use prestored shoe last data without including the measuring apparatus 200. ...” The examiner interprets where A shoe upper design model generating system, comprising is shown in a hardware system (upper producing system 10) comprising a design support apparatus 100 used to create, design, and calculate a cutting pattern of a shoe upper by unrolling 3D shoe last shape data.) a memory for storing one or a plurality of computer programs comprising a plurality of commands; (See Kozuka: {[FIG 1 & 2], [0025-0027]}). Kozuka teaches using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial bottom line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a lateral bottom line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) the first heel line, (Taught by Raffaeli) the first collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second heel line (Taught by Raffaeli) and the second collar line; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1). Kozuka further teaches A shoe upper design model generating method, comprising the following steps (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using a processor to provide a 2D mapping boundary, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first last feather edge, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a first heel line, (Taught by Raffaeli) a first collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second heel line (Taught by Raffaeli) and a second last feather edge (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to execute a flattening algorithm on the 3D upper with respect to the 2D mapping boundary, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) and constructing a mapping relation between the 3D upper and the 2D mapping boundary at the same time (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to map grids in the 2D upper design area onto grids in the 3D upper via the mapping relation, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) thereby obtaining an upper design model containing the mapping relation between the 2D upper design area and the 3D upper. (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) It would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in the field of footwear CAD system development before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the mathematical flattening, bidirectional coordinate mapping, and 2D sketching framework of Azariadis (2000) with the standard anatomical side-splitting, boundary line definitions of Raffaeli (2011) and the processor-implemented cutting pattern, topline/outer periphery boundary constraints, and triangular grid deformation of Kozuka. The motivation to make this combination is driven by well-known industry design incentives and market forces, namely the universal need to automate the manual, highly error-prone translation of 3D virtual shoe lasts into 2D flat leather cutting patterns, thereby reducing shoe manufacturing costs, material waste, and prototype iteration times. A PHOSITA would look to integrate the general-purpose, high-precision mathematical coordinate mapping of Azariadis (2000) with the industry-standard boundaries and side-splitting of Raffaeli (2011) to create a robust, specialized computer-aided design platform. Slicing the shoe last upper into internal and external halves and using standard boundary lines (feather edges, heel lines, collar lines) as constraints for the unrolling algorithm yields a highly predictable, industry-standard 2D/3D CAD mapping tool that aligns with shoe drafting standards. To implement this, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Kozuka, which discloses dividing the upper main body portion into a plurality of triangular meshes (grids) and deforming them on a processor (design support apparatus 100) using a finite element method (FEM) based on restriction conditions such as material properties and boundary lines. Since both Azariadis (2000) and Kozuka rely on compatible computer systems and standard triangular grid mesh representations, combining Kozuka’s mesh deformation and topline/outer periphery boundaries with Azariadis's coordinate mapping matrices represents a routine integration of standard computer graphics and engineering principles. The resulting combination achieves the highly predictable result of projecting 2D style drawings onto 3D virtual shoe models with minimum conformal and dimensional distortion, satisfying all industry-standard boundary conditions. There is no unexpected or synergistic effect, and the method operates strictly according to the established functions of the individual prior art components. A PHOSITA would have had a high, reasonable expectation of success in executing this combination because both systems rely on compatible 3D software kernels and standardized data transfer formats. Regarding Claim 15 Azariadis teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage media, (See Azariadis: {[§4], [§3.1]: The examiner interprets where A non-transitory computer readable storage media is shown in unrolling and mapping algorithms are implemented as computer programs executed by a digital computer processor) for storing one or a plurality of computer programs comprising a plurality of commands, (See Azariadis: {[§4], [§3.1]}) a processor for executing the plurality of commands, (See Azariadis: {[§4], [§3.1]}) and when the processor executing the plurality of commands, (See Azariadis: {[§4], [§3.1]}) the processor executing the following operations (See Azariadis: {[§4], [§3.1]}) using a processor to provide a 2D mapping boundary, the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first last feather edge, a first heel line, a first collar line, a second collar line, a second heel line and a second last feather edge; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to execute a flattening algorithm on the 3D upper with respect to the 2D mapping boundary, and constructing a mapping relation between the 3D upper and the 2D mapping boundary at the same time; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial bottom line, a lateral bottom line, the first heel line, the first collar line, the second heel line and the second collar line; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary, and to create a 2D upper design area which is formed by intersection of the 2D upper boundary with an upper design drawing on it, and the 2D mapping boundary; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) and using the processor to map grids in the 2D upper design area onto grids in the 3D upper via the mapping relation, thereby obtaining an upper design model containing the mapping relation between the 2D upper design area and the 3D upper. (Article of Manufacture version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) Azariadis does not explicitly name the boundary curves of the shoe last as a "feather edge," "heel line," and "collar line" However, Raffaeli further teaches the 2D mapping boundary (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1). Raffaeli teaches a first last feather edge, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a first heel line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a first collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second heel line (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) and a second last feather edge; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1). Raffaeli further teaches using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1). Raffaeli teaches using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial a lateral ((System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to Define Standard Anatomical Boundaries. A CAD system developer building the system of Azariadis would immediately recognize that to make the system practically useful for shoe pattern engineering, the boundaries of the 2D planar development must correspond to standard footwear manufacturing boundaries. To achieve this, the developer would look to the standard footwear CAD methodologies taught in Raffaeli. Integrating the "feather curves," "heel curves," and "ankle/collar curves" of Raffaeli (2011) as the boundary constraints of the flattening algorithm of Azariadis represents a routine and common-sensical application of known geometric boundary definitions to a known flattening algorithm, achieving a highly predictable, industry-standard 2D/3D CAD mapping tool. The combination of Azariadis & Raffaeli does not explicitly name the boundary curves of the shoe last as a "bottom line” However, Kozuka further teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage media, (See Kozuka: {[FIG 1 & 2], [0035-0037]: “Although the processing program 1104 and the like executed in the design support apparatus 100 may be installed through computer-readable recording medium 114, the processing program 1104 and the like may be installed by being downloaded from a server device or the like on a network...” The examiner interprets where A non-transitory computer readable storage media is shown in a hardware system configuration comprising a processor 102, a main memory 104, and a storage 110 which is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (such as a hard disk or flash memory) for storing one or a plurality of computer programs comprising a plurality of commands, (See Kozuka: {[FIG 1 & 2], [0035-0037]: The examiner interprets where for storing one or a plurality of computer programs comprising a plurality of commands is shown in the storage 110 storing "the OS 1102, the processing programs 1104 and 1106, and the simulation program 1108" (the computer programs comprising commands) a processor for executing the plurality of commands, See Kozuka: {[FIG 1 & 2], [0035-0037]: The examiner interprets where a processor for executing the plurality of commands is shown in the processor 102 executing the programs from the main memory 104 to perform unrolling, grid division, deformation, and pattern generation operations.) and when the processor executing the plurality of commands, (See Kozuka: {[FIG 1 & 2], [0035-0037]} the processor executing the following operations (See Kozuka: {[FIG 1 & 2], [0035-0037]}). Kozuka teaches using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary, a portion of the 2D upper boundary comprising a medial bottom line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a lateral bottom line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) the first heel line, (Taught by Raffaeli) the first collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second heel line (Taught by Raffaeli) and the second collar line; (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1). Kozuka further teaches A shoe upper design model generating method, comprising the following steps (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using a processor to provide a 2D mapping boundary, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) the 2D mapping boundary comprising a first last feather edge, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a first heel line, (Taught by Raffaeli) a first collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second collar line, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) a second heel line (Taught by Raffaeli) and a second last feather edge (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to provide a 3D upper, the 3D upper being obtained from a pre-constructed 3D last draft (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to execute a flattening algorithm on the 3D upper with respect to the 2D mapping boundary, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) and constructing a mapping relation between the 3D upper and the 2D mapping boundary at the same time (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) using the processor to map grids in the 2D upper design area onto grids in the 3D upper via the mapping relation, (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) thereby obtaining an upper design model containing the mapping relation between the 2D upper design area and the 3D upper. (System version of claim 1. Similar rejection to claim 1. See claim 1) It would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in the field of footwear CAD system development before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the mathematical unrolling, bidirectional coordinate mapping, and 2D sketching framework of Azariadis (2000) with the standard anatomical side-splitting and boundary line definitions of Raffaeli (2011) and the processor-implemented hardware architecture, non-transitory computer-readable storage media, topline/outer periphery boundary constraints, and triangular grid deformation of Kozuka. The motivation to perform this combination is driven by well-known industry design incentives and market forces: namely, the need to automate the manual, error-prone translation of 3D virtual lasts into 2D leather cutting patterns, thereby reducing manufacturing costs, material waste, and labor time. A PHOSITA would look to store the specialized unrolling, coordinate mapping, and sketching software commands of Azariadis (2000) and the boundary side-splitting commands of Raffaeli (2011) on the nonvolatile (non-transitory computer-readable) storage medium (storage 110) of Kozuka for execution by its processor 102. Doing so represents a routine, conventional, and necessary software implementation step in the computer graphics and software engineering arts (MPEP § 2106.05(d)), yielding the highly predictable result of a fast, automated, and specialized shoe design workstation with high local coordinate mapping accuracy. The resulting combination achieves the highly predictable result of projecting 2D style drawings onto 3D virtual shoe models with minimum conformal and dimensional distortion, satisfying all industry-standard boundary conditions. There is no unexpected or synergistic effect, and the system operates strictly according to the established functions of the individual prior art components. A PHOSITA would have had a high, reasonable expectation of success in executing this combination because all three systems rely on compatible software kernels (Rhinoceros SDK) and standard, interoperable triangular grid representations. Regarding Claim 20 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, and Kozuka teaches The non-transitory computer readable storage media according to claim 15, (See claim 15) wherein the step of using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary further comprises: (Article of Manufacture version of claim 6. Similar rejection to claim 6. See claim 6) using the processor to create a plurality of design lines on the 2D upper boundary; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) and using the processor to define a plurality of part sections with the 2D upper boundary and the plurality of design lines as boundaries and generate a plurality of part section grids. (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) Motivation to combine similar to Claim 6. See Claim 6. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of NPL: “COMPUTERIZED MODELING TECHNOLOGY OF UNIQUE FOOTWEAR SURFACE MANUFACTURING DESIGN” by SABALIAUSKAS (2017). Regarding Claim 2 Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka teaches The shoe upper design model generating method according to claim 1, (See claim 1) Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli and Kozuka does not explicitly name ABF, LSCM, or ARAP parameterization as the specific flattening algorithms. Sabaliauskas teaches wherein the flattening algorithm is selected from any one of an Angle-Based Flattening (ABF), ([p.11 §2.2]: “To compute a parameterization of an object means to construct a bijection between vertices of 3D graph and 2D domain vertices respective (Figure 2). PNG media_image19.png 273 625 media_image19.png Greyscale According to Maxwell-Tutte theorem if G = (V,E) is 3-connected planar (triangular mesh) then any barycentric drawing is a valid embedding. Therefore each T Δ surface can be projected to plane inside the non-self intersecting closed contour. This projection is called parameterization f : T Δ ↔ T - Δ , T Δ ⊂ R 3 ; T - Δ ⊂ R 2 ; where P(x,y,z) : T Δ → T - Δ and Q(u,v) : T - Δ → T Δ are relations. There are three methods to make a projection T4 of given triangular surface T Δ : 1. Length-preserving or isometric mapping. 2. Angle-preserving or conformal mapping. 3. Area-preserving or authalic mapping. In this thesis, isometric ARAP mapping and two conformal ABF++ and LSCM mappings were investigated.” The examiner interprets where wherein the flattening algorithm is selected from any one of an Angle-Based Flattening (ABF) is shown in the use of Angle-Based Flattening (ABF/ABF++) as a computer-implemented parameterization algorithm to flatten 3D individual shoe last/shoetree models.) See [Table 1 & 2] & [p.23 §5] for support. The examiner interprets wherein the flattening algorithm is selected from any one of an Angle-Based Flattening (ABF) is shown in the execution of the ABF++ algorithm on 20 distinct shoe last fragments (Table 1) and calculating the resulting conformal and authalic distortions (Dangle and Darea) to evaluate its performance for footwear pattern extraction.) a Least Squares Conformal Maps (LSCM) (See [p.11 §2.2], [Table 1 & 2], [p.23 §5]: The examiner interprets where a Least Squares Conformal Maps (LSCM) is shown in the use of Least Squares Conformal Maps (LSCM) as a computer-implemented conformal parameterization algorithm to flatten 3D shoe last/shoetree models; executing LSCM on 20 distinct shoe last fragments and comparing its angular and area deformations against ARAP and ABF++ (Table 2).) and an As-Rigid-As-Possible Surface Parameterization (ARAP). (See [p.11 §2.2], [Table 1 & 2], [p.23 §5], [p.20 §4.1]: “To test flattening algorithms we have chosen five different digitized pairs of shoetrees with correspondent to molds which made by wax foil. After appreciation of correspondent molds of shoetrees, each shoetree was processed by cutting down a sole and head and then cut straight from the middle of a heel to the middle of the second foot’s finger. In total 20 fragments were flattened by ABF++, LSCM and ARAP algorithms (table 1)… The values in Margins column in Table 1 coincides to the difference in millimeters between corner points, numbered from 1 to 3 in Figure 9. Experimental results have shown that average values of relative similarity of flattened half-shoetrees equal to 97.49 %, 97.36 %, 97.70 %, which were obtained by ABF++, LSCM and ARAP algorithms, respectively... The main thing is that difference between corner points fluctuates middling about 8–9 mm, though the permissible error is only 2 mm. Therefore, future works on this problem can be testing of mixed parameterization algorithms or flattening by the 3D contour.” [FIG. 9]: PNG media_image20.png 309 623 media_image20.png Greyscale See [p.7 §1.5] for support. The examiner interprets where an As-Rig-As-Possible Surface Parameterization (ARAP) is shown in the use of As-Rig-As-Possible (ARAP) Surface Parameterization (isometric mapping) to flatten 3D shoe last models on a processor. It utilizes an analytical SVD solution and Cholesky decomposition of a sparse Laplace matrix to execute global ARAP optimization in real-time, achieving the lowest distortion metrics Dangle = 2.00306$, Darea = 2.00251 among the compared methods. It would have been highly obvious to a PHOSITA in the field of footwear CAD/CAM systems before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the general unrolling, sketching, and bidirectional grid mapping system of Azariadis (2000), the standard anatomical boundary-line and side-splitting layout of Raffaeli (2011), and the processor-implemented cutting pattern boundaries of Kozuka with the specific flattening algorithms (ABF, LSCM, and ARAP) taught in Sabaliauskas (2015). The motivation to integrate these teachings is driven by well-known industry design incentives and market forces; specifically, the need to automate the manual, highly error-prone, and time-consuming translation of 3D virtual lasts into 2D leather patterns, thereby reducing design cycle time, material waste, and prototype manufacturing costs. A PHOSITA would look to the comparative experimental data in Sabaliauskas (2015) to select the mathematically optimal parameterization algorithm for the shoe last CAD system of Azariadis (2000) or Kozuka. Sabaliauskas (2015) successfully tests and validates ABF++, LSCM, and ARAP on 20 distinct shoe last fragments, demonstrating that ARAP provides the lowest distortion in terms of local rigidity, while conformal LSCM and ABF++ preserve local angles to minimize wrinkles during leather stretching. Selecting one of these three standard, mathematically mature algorithms represent a simple, routine substitution of known graphics parameterization methods within Azariadis's general optimization framework to achieve predictable and highly stable geometric outputs. The resulting combination achieves the highly predictable result of unrolling 3D shoe upper surfaces with minimized local and global distortion, allowing a designer to draw in 2D and obtain highly precise, manufacturing-ready 3D upper designs in real-time. The algorithms operate strictly according to their established mathematical properties, with no unexpected or synergistic effects. A PHOSITA would have had a high, reasonable expectation of success in executing this combination because all four references rely on standard, compatible triangular mesh models (grids) and operate within standard footwear CAD graphics engines (such as Rhinoceros SDK or standard C++ platforms). Regarding Claim 9 Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka teaches The shoe upper design model generating system according to claim 8. (See claim 8) Sabaliauskas teaches wherein the flattening algorithm is selected from any one of an Angle-Based Flattening (ABF), (System version of claim 2. Similar rejection to claim 2. See claim 2) a Least Squares Conformal Maps (LSCM) (System version of claim 2. Similar rejection to claim 2. See claim 2) and an As-Rigid-As-Possible Surface Parameterization (ARAP). (System version of claim 2. Similar rejection to claim 2. See claim 2) Motivation to combine similar to claim 2. See claim 2. Regarding Claim 16 Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka teaches The non-transitory computer readable storage media according to claim 15. (see claim 15) Sabaliauskas teaches wherein the flattening algorithm is selected from any one of an Angle-Based Flattening (ABF), (Article of Manufacture version of claim 2. Similar rejection to claim 2. See claim 2) a Least Squares Conformal Maps (LSCM) (Article of Manufacture version of claim 2. Similar rejection to claim 2. See claim 2) and an As-Rigid-As-Possible Surface Parameterization (ARAP). (Article of Manufacture version of claim 2. Similar rejection to claim 2. See claim 2) Motivation to combine similar to Claim 2. See Claim 2. Claim(s) 3-5, 10-13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of NPL: “Rapid parametric design methods for shoe-last customization” by Wang et al., in further view of NPL: “Development of Orthopedic Insoles and Shoes 3D Design Process for Atypical Foot Morphologies” by Mishra et al., in further view of NPL: “A computer-aided design system for foot-feature-based shoe last customization” by Xiong et al., in further view of NPL: “A Digitally-enabled Integrated Approach to Design and Manufacture Shoe Lasts” by Marconi et al. Regarding Claim 3 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli and Kozuka teaches The shoe upper design model generating method according to claim 1, (See claim 1) wherein the step of using the processor to provide the 2D mapping boundary further comprises: [See Azariadis:{[p. 541 §3.1], [FIG. 1 a-c], [p. 544 §3.5], [FIG. 4a]} Raffaeli:{[p.147 §5.4] & {FIG. 17]}: The examiner interprets where wherein the step of using the processor to provide the 2D mapping boundary further comprises: is shown in utilizing a processor to unroll a triangulated shoe last model to generate a planar boundary and unrolling medial and lateral curves and overlapping them in a common orientation to establish a 2D upper boundary layout.) and obtaining a plurality of reference points arranged in a uniform spacing between the two points, (Raffaeli: [p.145 §5.3]: “The previous phase results in segmented point clouds made of many points, one for each mesh vertex. In order to draw fair curves fewer points are necessary... Each set of points is then substituted by a mean position. This leads to a reduction of points. Third condition is the elimination of points with low redundancy value. We define redundancy the number of points originating the resulting one… Then the value of the function at tn is split in even parts. Basically for each subdivision the product between span length and mean radius of curvature is constant. Parameter values t1 to tn−1 are expressed by equation (4) and are computed numerically..” [FIG. 15]: PNG media_image21.png 452 624 media_image21.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where obtaining a plurality of reference points arranged in a uniform spacing between the two point is shown in dividing a curve into evenly spaced reference points by computing an integral function and numerically solving for parameter values t1 and tn-1) (See Raffaeli [p.147 §5.4] & {FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to generate a mirror centerline is shown in using a processor to generate a mirror centerline (symmetry axis) to perform mirroring transformations on unrolled medial and lateral profiles) using the processor to generate a heel line; (See Raffaeli: {[p.142 §4] & [FIG. 7-10], [p.147 §5.4] & {FIG. 17]}: The examiner interprets where using the processor to generate a heel line is shown unrolling and mirroring back curves/heel profiles to construct 2D patterns.) using the processor to generate a 2D collar line on the 2D last draft based on a technical package, (See Kozuka [0009], [0038], [0050]: “Initially, the design support apparatus 100 generates such a two-dimensional pattern of the main body portion 30 that a portion corresponding to the surface of the shoe last 4 is virtually cut into a plurality of radially arranged strips in order to develop the main body portion 30 in the three-dimensional shape simply to an annular hollow shape without taking into consideration the length of the outer periphery 30 a.” The examiner interprets where using the processor to generate a 2D collar line on the 2D last draft based on a technical package is shown in generating a 2D pattern of the upper main body portion representing the upper surface where the inner periphery corresponds to the topline (collar line) and is designed based on style layout.) or generate a 2D collar line by mapping a 3D projection collar line onto the 2D last draft, (See Raffaeli [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 6 &17], [p.144 §5.2], [FIG 12 & 13], [p.142 §3.2]: “The proposed approach is based on the virtualisation of the described process (Fig. 6). To this aim proper methodologies and tools are necessary in order to create the virtual models of new shoe concepts and to support the engineering process… First of all, last and styling virtual models must be created. By integrating both aesthetic and technical factors, Reverse Engineering technology can be conveniently used for scanning both last and shoe style model. The 3D coordinates measurement system has to be combined with the image texture acquisition. Scanning at fixed angles positions, thanks to a proper set-up, allows automatic views alignment and merging… Using such tools new lasts can be virtually obtained from other models and then physically realised by milling. Style model is acquired using the same optical scanner. This acquisition carries out a coloured point cloud, which is then overlapped and aligned to the last surfaces model. The next step consists of curves automatic detection. Algorithms have been adopted in order to flatten last NURBS surfaces…” [FIG. 6]: PNG media_image22.png 782 462 media_image22.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where generate a 2D collar line by mapping a 3D projection collar line onto the 2D last draft is shown in projecting style curves sketched in 2D (simulation collar lines) onto a 3D last model (projection collar lines). wherein the 3D projection collar line is generated by projecting a 2D simulation collar line onto a pre-constructed 3D last draft, ((See Raffaeli: [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17], [p.142 §3.2], [p.144 §5.2], [FIG 12 & 13]: The examiner interprets wherein the 3D projection collar line is generated by projecting a 2D simulation collar line onto a pre-constructed 3D last draft is shown in flattening/mapping style curves sketched in 2D (simulation collar lines) onto a 3D last model (projection collar lines) onto the 2D draft) using the processor to mirror the medial feather edge, (See Raffaeli [p.147 §5.4] & {FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to mirror the medial feather edge is shown in unrolling uncoupled medial and lateral curves.) the heel line and the 2D collar line by the mirror centerline, (See Raffaeli [p.147 §5.4] & {FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to mirror the heel line and the 2D collar line by the mirror centerline is shown in unrolling uncoupled medial and lateral curves, mirroring them across a mirror centerline.) then connecting each segment, (See Raffaeli [p.147 §5.4] & {FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where connecting each segment is shown in u connecting each segment (collar, heel, and bottom outlines) in a common orientation.) in order to generate the 2D mapping boundary. (See Raffaeli [p.147 §5.4] & {FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where in order to generate the 2D mapping boundary is shown in generating the complete 2D upper boundary (mapping boundary).) Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli and Kozuka fails to explicitly teach using the processor to provide a 2D last draft, the 2D last draft has a front centerline, a heel centerline, a media feather edge and a lateral feather edge. Wang teaches using the processor to provide a 2D last draft, ([p.178 §3.3]: “The contour curves are created from control points, respectively, and they do not share the topologic information with relative adjacent ones. This kind of curve frame changes. In order to enhance the robustness of this curve frame, parametric constraints are introduced in this paper. They make the curves into a stable system so that it will not crash down when local changes of curves happen. Accord ng to the actual situation of curves, here we propose concurrent constraint (C1), coplanar constraint (C2), dimension constraint (C3), etc. (Fig. 8 and Table 4)...” [FIG. 8]: PNG media_image23.png 247 623 media_image23.png Greyscale See [Table 4], [FIG. 2, 5, 7] for support. The examiner interprets where using the processor to provide a 2D last draft is shown in a computer-implemented CAD framework.) the 2D last draft has a front centerline, (See Wang [FIG. 7] (CE1): The examiner interprets where the 2D last draft has a front centerline is shown in utilizing a shoe last profile curve (front centerline).) a heel centerline, (Taught by Mishra later) a medial feather edge and a lateral feather edge.(See [FIG. 7] (CE2), [FIG. 5] & [FIG. 3] (Gl & Gm) PNG media_image24.png 193 608 media_image24.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where the 2D last draft has a medial feather edge and a lateral feather edge is shown in utilizing a shoe last bottom outline curve (featherline / medial and lateral feather edges).) It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to Mirror and Connect Segments. Traditional shoe uppers are symmetrical or require structured layout of medial and lateral halves. Wang (2011) and Raffaeli (2011) teach that mirroring flattened medial lines across a mirror centerline and connecting segments is the standard, most efficient way to generate a complete 2D pattern boundary. Combining this mirroring step with Azariadis's mapping boundary math is common-sensical and highly predictable. Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, and Wang fails to explicitly teach a heel centerline. Mishra teaches a heel centerline (p. 94 [§V.2]: PNG media_image25.png 313 625 media_image25.png Greyscale [FIG. 73]: PNG media_image26.png 345 543 media_image26.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where the 2D last draft has a heel centerline is shown in 2D/3D shoe last CAD representation defining a back center line (heel centerline).) Mishra further teaches a media feather edge and a lateral feather edge (p. 98 [§V.2.1]: PNG media_image27.png 255 620 media_image27.png Greyscale [FIG. 66]: PNG media_image28.png 436 623 media_image28.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the standard, industry-recognized 2D last draft curves of Mishra (2019) as the boundary profiles of the 2D last draft provided by Raffaeli (2011) in order to align with standard footwear modeling practices. Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, and Mishra fails to explicitly teach using the processor to obtain a middle point of the front centerline and an end point of the front centerline, and obtaining a plurality of reference points arranged in a uniform spacing between the two points, (Taught by Raffaeli) and for each one of the reference points, obtaining a plurality of tangent vectors of the point and the front centerline, then obtaining an average tangent vector of the plurality of tangent vectors, calculating the angle of the rotation from the average tangent vector to a horizontal vector, and rotating the 2D last draft to a position of an instep facing upward. Xiong teaches using the processor to obtain a middle point of the front centerline and an end point of the front centerline, (Xiong [p. 13 Step 4]: PNG media_image29.png 635 625 media_image29.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where using the processor to obtain a middle point of the front centerline and an end point of the front centerline is shown using a processor to align a foot/last model by: obtaining a middle point and end point of a centerline.) and obtaining a plurality of reference points arranged in a uniform spacing between the two points, (Taught by Raffaeli, but further taught by Xiong (Xiong [p. 13 Step 4]: The examiner interprets where obtaining a plurality of reference points arranged in a uniform spacing between the two points is shown in obtaining K reference points (midpoints) with uniform spacing along the model.) and for each one of the reference points, (Xiong (Xiong [p. 13 Step 4]: K reference points (midpoints).) obtaining a plurality of tangent vectors of the point and the front centerline, , (Xiong [p. 13 See Step 5]: The examiner interprets where obtaining a plurality of tangent vectors of the point and the front centerline is shown in fitting a least-squares line (calculating the average direction/slope of the centerline points).) then obtaining an average tangent vector of the plurality of tangent vectors, (Xiong [p. 13 See Step 5]: The examiner interprets where for each one of the reference points, obtaining a plurality of tangent vectors of the point and the front centerline is shown in fitting a least-squares line (which computes the average slope/vector of the centerline curve)) calculating the angle of the rotation from the average tangent vector to a horizontal vector, (Xiong [p. 13 See Step 6]: The examiner interprets where calculating the angle of the rotation from the average tangent vector to a horizontal vector is shown in calculating the angle of rotation from the fitted line/vector to a horizontal vector.) and rotating the 2D last draft to a position of an instep facing upward. (Xiong [p. 13 See Step 8]: The examiner interprets where rotating the 2D last draft to a position of an instep facing upward is shown in rotating the points by this cumulative angle to achieve a horizontal alignment (position of instep facing upward).) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the least-squares fitted line of Xiong (2010) with an average tangent vector calculated from a plurality of tangent vectors at evenly spaced points along the centerline as taught by Raffaeli (2011), since both represent standard, routine, and mathematically equivalent alignment options in computer graphics to rotate a 2D curve to a standardized horizontal orientation. . A CAD developer building the system of Azariadis (2000) would immediately recognize that before a 3D shoe last can be flattened, it must be properly oriented in a coordinate system. To automate this, the developer would look to the teaching of Xiong (2010), which discloses finding the centerline of a last draft, calculating its slope/rotation angle via section midpoints, and rotating the draft to a standardized horizontal orientation (instep facing upward). Implementing this using tangent vectors along the centerline (as in Raffaeli (2011) and standard graphics math) represents a routine application of known coordinate-alignment techniques to a known shoe last model to ensure predictable, stable geometric orientations. Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, and Xiong fails to explicitly teach the 2D simulation collar line is generated from a parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing in the technical package. Marconi teaches the 2D simulation collar line is generated from a parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing in the technical package ([p. 603 §4]: “The proposed approach has been tested in the context of the shoe last marking task. This operation is usually performed using a laser beam, which marks the shoe last by burning its surface. The markings contain information about size, client, data, heel height and collar position, thus each shoe last must be marked in several positions. While the number and locations of collar position markings depend on the shoe last model, other markings usually remain in the same position. The shape of each marking is identified by a code. The number and the codes of the marking for each last model are saved in an XML file (i.e. Order data in Figure 4) at the moment of the order arrival. Figure 8 shows a finished shoe last with the details of each mark.” [FIG. 8]: PNG media_image30.png 200 623 media_image30.png Greyscale [FIG. 11]: PNG media_image31.png 302 625 media_image31.png Greyscale See [FIG. 4] for support. The examiner interprets where the 2D simulation collar line is generated from a parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing in the technical package is shown projecting 2D design drawings from a technical package onto a 3D model.) It would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in the field of shoe CAD development before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the mathematical flattening, bidirectional coordinate mapping, and 2D sketching framework of Azariadis (2000) with the standard anatomical side-splitting, boundary line definitions, and 2D upper pattern editing of Raffaeli (2011) and Kozuka, and further integrate the automatic coordinate centerline alignment of Xiong (2010) and standard curves of Mishra (2019). The motivation to perform this combination is driven by well-known industry design incentives and market forces: namely, the need to automate the manual, error-prone translation of 3D virtual lasts into 2D leather cutting patterns, thereby reducing manufacturing costs, material waste, and labor time. A PHOSITA would look to integrate the general-purpose, high-precision mathematical mapping of Azariadis (2000) with the industry-standard boundaries of Raffaeli (2011) and Kozuka to create a robust, specialized computer-aided design platform. To make this unrolling system practically useful and automated, the developer would look to the teaching of Xiong (2010) to automatically orient and align the 2D last draft curves along a horizontal axis (instep facing upward) before unrolling, using standard vector averaging and tangent calculations. The unrolled medial and lateral profiles are then mirrored across a mirror centerline and connected to form a complete, closed unrolled 2D pattern boundary as taught by Raffaeli (2011). Standard projection techniques of Raffaeli (2011) and Marconi (2019) are utilized to accurately map simulated collar lines from 2D sketches onto 3D models. The resulting combination achieves the highly predictable result of projecting 2D style drawings onto 3D virtual shoe models with minimum conformal and dimensional distortion, satisfying all industry-standard boundary conditions. There is no unexpected or synergistic effect, and the method operates strictly according to the established functions of the individual prior art components. A PHOSITA would have had a high, reasonable expectation of success in executing this combination because all systems rely on compatible 3D software kernels (Rhinoceros SDK) and standardized data transfer formats (DXF, STEP). Regarding Claim 4 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches The shoe upper design model generating method according to claim 3, (See claim 3) wherein the step of using the processor to provide the 3D upper further comprises: (See Azariadis: {[p. 541 §3.1], [FIG. 1 a-c], [p. 544 §3.5], [FIG. 4a]}, Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4] & {FIG. 17]}, Kozuka: {[FIG. 6], [0048-0049], [0046-0047]: “Processing for creating the cutting pattern of the upper 3 in the design support apparatus 100 will be described further in detail. FIG. 6 is a flowchart for illustrating a method of creating a cutting pattern of the upper 3 according to the embodiment..” [FIG. 12]: PNG media_image32.png 526 392 media_image32.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where wherein the step of using the processor to provide the 3D upper further comprises is shown in unrolling a triangulated shoe last model to generate a planar boundary; unrolling medial and lateral curves and overlapping them to establish a 2D upper boundary layout; a processor-implemented method of producing and designing a shoe upper by two-dimensionally unrolling 3D shoe last upper data and creating a cutting pattern.) using the processor to generate a 2D collar line directly on the parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing based on the technical package, (See Raffaeli: [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17], [p.144 §5.2], [FIG 12 & 13]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to generate a 2D collar line directly on the parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing based on the technical package is shown in generating 2D collar style lines on the unrolled 2D last draft [251] by projecting style curves sketched in 2D (simulation collar lines) onto a 3D last model (projection collar lines) and then flattening/mapping those curves onto the 2D draft.) then projecting the 2D collar line onto a pre-constructed 3D last draft to generate the 3D collar line, (See Marconi [FIG. 4, 8, 111], [p. 603 §4]: The examiner interprets where then projecting the 2D collar line onto a pre-constructed 3D last draft to generate the 3D collar line is shown in projecting 2D design drawings (marks) from a technical package onto a 3D model.) or generating the 2D collar line on the 2D last draft based on a technical package, (See Kozuka: {[FIG. 6], [0048-0049], [0046-0047]: The examiner interprets where generating the 2D collar line on the 2D last draft based on a technical package is shown in generating a 2D pattern of the upper main body portion representing the upper surface where the inner periphery corresponds to the topline (collar line) and is designed based on style layout; the processor may generate the shape of a topline of the upper based on user's selective information and apply the shape of the topline of the upper to the 3D shape data of the upper.) then mapping the 2D collar line onto the 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D collar line; (See Marconi [FIG. 4, 8, 111], [p. 603 §4]: The examiner interprets where then mapping the 2D collar line onto the 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D collar line is shown in projecting 2D design drawings (marks) from a technical package onto a 3D model.) using the processor to cut a 3D last draft surface in order to generate a post-cutting 3D last draft; (See Kozuka: {[FIG. 6, 7A], [0009], [0049], [0051]}: The examiner interprets where using the processor to cut a 3D last draft surface in order to generate a post-cutting 3D last draft is shown in executing a processor-implemented S105 unrolling step: "CUT 3D SHAPE OF UPPER INTO A PLURALITY OF STRIPS AND COMPUTE TWO-DIMENSIONAL PATTERN;” Specifically, the processor executes virtual cutting of the 3D shape of the upper 3 along division lines into a plurality of strips 30c, the division lines extending from the inner periphery 30b corresponding to the topline (collar line) of the shoe last 4; executing virtual cutting of the 3D upper mesh on a processor along these division lines directly generates a post-cutting mesh model (post-cutting 3D last draft).), Mishra: {[FIG. 47g & 47h]: PNG media_image33.png 500 518 media_image33.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where using the processor to cut a 3D last draft surface in order to generate a post-cutting 3D last draft is shown in pre-treatment of the scanned 3D shoe last mesh by placing a cutting plane to cut off the top of the object, resulting in the cuts (yellow profiles) shown in Figure 47g-h, generating a post-cutting closed 3D model.) See Wang: {[FIG. 5], {FIG. 6]: PNG media_image34.png 118 624 media_image34.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where using the processor to cut a 3D last draft surface in order to generate a post-cutting 3D last draft is shown in piecewise reconstruction by dividing the shoe last mesh into region slices, segmenting the mesh to create order.) And using the processor to apply a physical shoe data to perform shaping of the post-cutting 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D upper. (See Kozuka: [0048], [0028]: “The processor 102 is implemented by a CPU, a GPU or the like, and can read programs (by way of example, an OS 1102 and a processing program 1104) stored in the storage 110 and deploy the programs in the main memory 104 for execution. The processor 102 executes various programs read from the storage 110. Specifically, the processing program 1104 computes the shoe last data from the foot shape data and additional information received by the input unit 106, based on a prescribed algorithm. Using a prescribed algorithm, a processing program 1106 calculates the cutting pattern of the sheet based on the shoe last data. A simulation program 1108 is used in the processing program 1106, and simulates a direction in which the sheet is expanded and/or shrunk to adjust a length of an outer periphery of a two-dimensional pattern. The processor 102 that executes the programs corresponds to a computing unit of the design support apparatus 100.” The examiner interprets where using the processor to apply a physical shoe data to perform shaping of the post-cutting 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D upper is shown in using a processor to apply physical shoe/foot data to perform shaping of the 3D upper; adjusting the size of the upper mesh based on shoe-model information and foot shape data represents deforming and shaping the mesh. Mishra: [p. 105 §V.4]: PNG media_image35.png 572 389 media_image35.png Greyscale [FIG. 81]: PNG media_image36.png 699 624 media_image36.png Greyscale See [FIG. 94 & 96 for support. The examiner interprets where using the processor to apply a physical shoe data to perform shaping of the post-cutting 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D upper is shown in applying physical foot/shoe parameters (girth, width, sole length, and 1D/2D/3D comfort ease allowances) to shape, deform, and customize the 3D shoe last upper surface mesh, smoothing the junction areas to generate a customized 3D model. See Wang: ([p.178 §3.3], [FIG. 8], [Table 4], [p. 180 §3.4.2]: “This paper introduces two approaches to adjust the curves: (1) Directly drag a control point, and real-time solve constraints on the point to determine its coordinate values, and then update the relative curves (Fig. 10a and b). (2) Draft a curve by hand, and map relative control points to the drafted curve, then update the contour curves (Fig. 10d and e)… The moving of control point affects its adjacent quadr-boundary surfaces (e.g., in Fig. 12, the center control point affects four surface regions in red line and the control point in blue affects two adjacent regions in blue). After the adjusting of contour curves, vertices on the boundary of piecewise surfaces are actually updated. In order to preserve the details of the surface we adopt a method similar to u–v coons interpolation but it focuses on the increment led by the control point adjusting (Fig. 13)… In addition to the manipulation in 2D views, the curves also can be adjusted in proper custom view and the relative surface is affected accordingly (Fig. 14)…” [FIG. 10]: PNG media_image37.png 168 467 media_image37.png Greyscale See [FIG. 13-14] for support. The examiner interprets where using the processor to apply a physical shoe data to perform shaping of the post-cutting 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D upper is shown in applying a set of physical shoe parameters (foot length, heel height, sole length, toe height, toe girth) and constraint equations to deform and shape the 3D reconstructed mesh frame (draft-driven deformation). Motivation to combine similar to previous dependent claim. Regarding Claim 5 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches The shoe upper design model generating method according to claim 4, (See claim 4) wherein the step of using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary further comprises: (See Raffaeli: [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where wherein the step of using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary further comprises is shown in utilizing a processor to unroll medial and lateral curves and overlapping them in a common orientation to establish a 2D upper boundary.) using the processor to construct a first intersection point for an intersection of the medial feather edge and the heel centerline, (See Mishra: {[p. 98 [§V.2.1] & [FIG. 66], Raffaeli: [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to construct a first intersection point for an intersection of the medial feather edge and the heel centerline is shown in the shoe last divided into internal (medial) and external (lateral) side surfaces; when flattened, profiles are overlapped in a common orientation; and due to the asymmetry of the last, the medial and lateral bottom lines (medial and lateral feather edges) do not overlap perfectly. At the heel, these unrolled curves intersect the back centerline (heel profile) at starting points (first and second intersection points) [251].) and to construct a second intersection point for an intersection of the lateral feather edge and the heel centerline, (See Mishra: {[p. 98 [§V.2.1] & [FIG. 66], Raffaeli: [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]) and using the first intersection point and the second intersection point as starting points to construct a feather edge separation point which is a non-overlapping starting point of the medial feather edge and the lateral feather edge along a direction toward a toe respectively; (See Mishra: {[p. 98 [§V.2.1] & [FIG. 66], Raffaeli: [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where using the first intersection point and the second intersection point as starting points to construct a feather edge separation point which is a non-overlapping starting point of the medial feather edge and the lateral feather edge along a direction toward a toe respectively is shown in the curves extending toward the toe, diverge at a specific node (feather edge separation point), representing the non-overlapping starting point of the medial and lateral bottom lines along the direction toward the toe. Slicing and aligning these unrolled boundaries on a processor naturally creates this non-overlapping starting point.) using the processor to construct a medial feather edge point for an intersection between the first instep reference line and the medial feather edge, (See Raffaeli: {[p.144 §5.2], [FIG 12 & 13], [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to construct a medial feather edge point for an intersection between the first instep reference line and the medial feather edge is shown in standard cross-sectional slices of the shoe last, including the instep plane/line (first instep reference line) and ball plane. The intersection of these reference planes/lines with the unrolled medial and lateral feather edges generates distinct medial and lateral feather edge. points. See Mishra: {[p. 94 [§V.2], [FIG. 73], [p. 52 §II.4.2.c]: PNG media_image38.png 441 530 media_image38.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where using the processor to construct a medial feather edge point for an intersection between the first instep reference line and the medial feather edge is shown in cross-sectional planes, such as the instep plane (which defines the instep girth), intersecting the medial and lateral sole borders (featherline) of the foot and last to define key reference points (such as the instep point and medial/lateral contact points).) and to construct an lateral feather edge point for an intersection between the first instep reference line and the lateral feather edge; (See Raffaeli: {[p.144 §5.2], [FIG 12 & 13], [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17], Mishra: {[p. 94 [§V.2], [FIG. 73], [p. 52 §II.4.2.c]) using the processor to offset the tangent vector 5-8 millimeters outward from the medial feather edge point to construct a medial feather edge reference point, (See Raffaeli [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17], See Mishra [p.104 §V.3.2]: PNG media_image39.png 735 624 media_image39.png Greyscale [Table 10]: PNG media_image40.png 684 624 media_image40.png Greyscale See [p.98 §V.3.1] &[FIG. 98]: for support. The examiner interprets where using the processor to offset the tangent vector 5-8 millimeters outward from the medial feather edge point to construct a medial feather edge reference point is shown in applying comfort ease allowances (1D ease allowances) to the boundary contours of the foot/last. As shown in Table 10, at cross-sections representing the toes and ball region (curves C1, C2, C3), the ease allowances added to the width of the last are standardly 6.8 mm (which lies directly within the claimed 5-8 mm range) and 9.0 mm. Also, the standing-walking extension difference is up to 5.9 mm. See Kozuka: {[See [FIG. 2 & 13A-A], [0086]: The examiner interprets where using the processor to offset the tangent vector 5-8 millimeters outward from the medial feather edge point to construct a medial feather edge reference point is shown in mesh nodes and 2D patterns deformed or offset outward (e.g., in a perpendicular/tangent direction) under boundary constraint conditions to adjust the pattern size and add comfort allowances. Offsetting the boundary tangent vectors by 5-8 mm outward is a standard, routine parameter widely used in footwear CAD systems to establish a comfortable shoe upper envelope.) and offset the tangent vector 5-8 millimeters outward from the lateral feather edge point to generate a lateral feather edge reference point; (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]} See Mishra: {[p.98 §V.3.1], [p.104 §V.3.2], [Table 10], [FIG. 98]} See Kozuka: {[FIG. 2 & 13A-A], [0086]} using the processor to offset a toe tip point 5-8 millimeters outward with respect to a horizontal direction of the mirror centerline in order to construct a toe tip reference point; (See Kozuka: {[FIG. 2 & 13A-A], [0086]}: The examine interprets where using the processor to offset a toe tip point 5-8 millimeters outward with respect to a horizontal direction of the mirror centerline in order to construct a toe tip reference point is shown in the length of the unrolled upper main body portion adjusted/extended at the toe tip area to incorporate style allowances.) See Mishra: {[p.98 §V.3.1], {[p.104 §V.3.2], [Table 10], [FIG. 98 & 94]}: The examiner interprets where using the processor to offset a toe tip point 5-8 millimeters outward with respect to a horizontal direction of the mirror centerline in order to construct a toe tip reference point is shown in the ease allowance of use for weight-bearing extension and toes extension integrated at the end of the featherline (the toe tip) to prevent the toes from touching the bottom of the shoe during walking. The global value of this weight-bearing and toe extension is about 9.8 mm, and the standing-walking extension is in the range of 2.5 mm to 5.9 mm. Selecting a comfort offset of 5-8 mm at the toe tip in the horizontal direction of the mirror centerline (the longitudinal axis of the draft) is a routine, well-known parameter in the shoe design art to allow for foot elongation.) using the processor to connect the toe tip reference point, (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]}, Mishra: {[FIG. 94], [FIG. 95]: PNG media_image41.png 128 373 media_image41.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where using the processor to connect the toe tip reference point is shown in connecting key boundary reference points (the unrolled heel, ball, instep, and toe tip points) using parametric splines (such as NURBS curves) on a processor.) the medial feather edge reference point and the feather edge separation point in order to construct a medial bottom line, (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]}, Mishra: {[FIG. 94], [FIG. 95]): The examiner interprets where the medial feather edge reference point and the feather edge separation point in order to construct a medial bottom line is shown in constructing the medial bottom line (internal unrolled bottom curve) and lateral bottom line (external unrolled bottom curve).) and connect the toe tip reference point, (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]}, Mishra: {[FIG. 94], [FIG. 95]) the lateral feather edge reference point and the feather edge separation point in order to construct a lateral bottom line; (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]}, Mishra: {[FIG. 94], [FIG. 95]) and using the processor to perform mirroring of the heel line, (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]}: The examiner interprets where using the processor to perform mirroring of the heel line is shown in the unrolled medial and lateral curves (including bottom lines, heel lines, and collar lines) mirrored across the mirror centerline (symmetry axis). See Wang: {[FIG. 5 & 7], [p.178 §3.2]: “Contour curves are generated from the boundaries of every piecewise region. They are represented by the parametric curve definition and can be used for the deformation of surfaces… There are many types of parametric curves for choices to create contour curves from these points, such as Bezier curve or B-spline curve. As control points are sampled from the vertices and we hope the contour curves are generated along the surface of shoe-last. Although the interpolation of Bezier or B- spline curve can pass these points, it needs more calculation in this process… These curves are attached on the surface of shoe-last forming a curve frame in accordance with the features. Based on the region division of shoe-last surface, there are totally nine curves generated from the control points. Two curves (CS2 and CS4) are added specifically to divide the instep–waist, ball–toe region. Thus, this curve frame attached on the shoe-last surface is generated for the further adjusting of shoe-last. These curves can be classified into two categories: (1) Envelop contour curve (CE1, CE2 in Fig. 7) is the contour curve which envelops shoe-last in a 2D view. The control points of curves are sampled from vertices by appropriate distance, then take Ferguson curve as the envelop curve. (2) Section contour curve (CS1–CS7 in Fig 7) is the contour curve extracted from slice of shoe-last. The control points of curves are sampled from vertices on the slice by equal distance, and then generate a Ferguson curve.” [p.176 §3.1]: “Reconstruction can simplify and regularize the mesh of shoe-last, which benefits shoe-last surface editing.. It should support the method of reconstructing shoe- last with slice technique [27]. Specific division should be made where the local curvature changes drastically in order to decrease the difference between the reconstruction model and the original one.” The examiner interprets where using the processor to perform mirroring of the heel line is shown in using a mirror centerline to perform mirroring of draft contours.) the 2D collar line and the medial bottom line based on the mirror centerline, (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]) followed by connecting each segment, (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]): The examiner interprets where followed by connecting each segment is shown In the unrolled medial and lateral curves (including bottom lines, heel lines, and collar lines) combined/overlapped in a common orientation. See Wang: {[FIG. 5 & 7], [p.178 §3.2], [p.176 §3.1]: The examiner interprets where followed by connecting each segment is shown in using a mirror centerline to perform mirroring of draft contours and connecting them.) in order to generate the 2D upper boundary. (See Raffaeli: {[p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 17]): The examiner interprets where in order to generate the 2D upper boundary is shown in connecting each segment to construct the complete closed 2D upper boundary. See Wang: {[FIG. 5 & 7], [p.178 §3.2], [p.176 §3.1]: The examiner interprets where in order to generate the 2D upper boundary is shown in using a mirror centerline to perform mirroring of draft contours and connecting them to construct closed 2D boundaries.) The motivation to combine is similar to the dependent claim. Regarding Claim 10 Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka teaches The shoe upper design model generating system according to claim 8. (See claim 8) Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches wherein the step of using the processor to provide the 2D mapping boundary further comprises: (System version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to provide a 2D last draft, the 2D last draft has a front centerline, a heel centerline, a medial feather edge and a lateral feather edge; (System version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to obtain a middle point of the front centerline and an end point of the front centerline, and obtaining a plurality of reference points arranged in a uniform spacing between the two points, and for each one of the reference points, obtaining a plurality of tangent vectors of the point and the front centerline, then obtaining an average tangent vector of the plurality of tangent vectors, calculating the angle of the rotation from the average tangent vector to a horizontal vector, and rotating the 2D last draft to a position of an instep facing upward; (System version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to generate a mirror centerline; (System version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to generate a heel line; (System version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to generate a 2D collar line on the 2D last draft based on a technical package, or generate a 2D collar line by mapping a 3D projection collar line onto the 2D last draft, wherein the 3D projection collar line is generated by projecting a 2D simulation collar line onto a pre-constructed 3D last draft, and the 2D simulation collar line is generated from a parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing in the technical package; (System version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) and using the processor to mirror the medial feather edge, the heel line and the 2D collar line by the mirror centerline, then connecting each segment, in order to generate the 2D mapping boundary. (System version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) Motivation to combine similar to claim 3. See claim 3. Regarding Claim 11 Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka teaches The shoe upper design model generating system according to claim 8. (See claim 8) ) Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches wherein the step of using the processor to provide the 3D upper further comprises: (System version of claim 4. Similar rejection to claim 4. See claim 4) using the processor to generate a 2D collar line directly on the parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing based on the technical package, then projecting the 2D collar line onto a pre-constructed 3D last draft to generate the 3D collar line, or generating the 2D collar line on the 2D last draft based on a technical package, then mapping the 2D collar line onto the 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D collar line; (System version of claim 4. Similar rejection to claim 4. See claim 4) using the processor to cut a 3D last draft surface in order to generate a post-cutting 3D last draft; (System version of claim 4. Similar rejection to claim 4. See claim 4) and using the processor to apply a physical shoe data to perform shaping of the post-cutting 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D upper. (System version of claim 4. Similar rejection to claim 4. See claim 4) Motivation to combine similar to claim 4. See claim 4. Regarding Claim 12 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches The shoe upper design model generating system according to claim 11, (See claim 11) wherein the step of using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary further comprises: (System version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to construct a first intersection point for an intersection of the medial feather edge and the heel centerline, and to construct a second intersection point for an intersection of the lateral feather edge and the heel centerline, and using the first intersection point and the second intersection point as starting points to respectively construct a feather edge separation point with a non-overlapping starting point of the medial feather edge and the lateral feather edge along a direction toward a toe; (System version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to construct a medial feather edge point for an intersection between the first instep reference line and the medial feather edge, and to construct a lateral feather edge point for an intersection between the first instep reference line and the lateral feather edge point; (System version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to offset the tangent vector 5-8 millimeters outward from the medial feather edge point to construct a medial feather edge reference point, and offset a tangent vector 5-8 millimeters outward from the lateral feather edge point to generate a lateral feather edge reference point; (System version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to offset a toe tip point 5-8 millimeters outward with respect to a horizontal direction of the mirror centerline in order to construct a toe tip reference point; (System version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to connect the toe tip reference point, the medial feather edge reference point and the feather edge separation point in order to construct a medial bottom line, and connect the toe tip reference point, the lateral feather edge reference point and the feather edge separation point in order to construct a lateral bottom line; (System version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) and using the processor to perform mirroring of the heel line, the 2D collar line and the medial bottom line based on the mirror centerline, followed by connecting each segment, in order to generate the 2D upper boundary. (System version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) Motivation to combine similar to claim 5. See claim 5. Regarding Claim 13 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches The shoe upper design model generating system according to claim 12, (See claim 13=2) wherein the step of using the processor to create an upper design drawing on the 2D upper boundary further comprises: (System version of claim 6. Similar rejection to claim 6. See claim 6) using the processor to create a plurality of design lines on the 2D upper boundary; (System version of claim 6. Similar rejection to claim 6. See claim 6) and using the processor to define a plurality of part sections which taking the 2D upper boundary and the plurality of design lines as boundaries and generate a plurality of part section grids. (System version of claim 6. Similar rejection to claim 6. See claim 6) Motivation to combine similar to dependent claim. Regarding Claim 17 Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka The non-transitory computer readable storage media according to claim 15. (See claim 15) wherein the step of using the processor to provide the 2D mapping boundary further comprises: Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches using the processor to provide a 2D last draft, the 2D last draft has a front centerline, a heel centerline, a medial feather edge and a lateral feather edge; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to obtain a middle point of the front centerline and an end point of the front centerline, and obtaining a plurality of reference points arranged in a uniform spacing between the two points, and for each one of the reference points, obtaining a plurality of tangent vectors of the point and the front centerline, then obtaining an average tangent vector of the plurality of tangent vectors, calculating the angle of the rotation from the average tangent vector to a horizontal vector, and rotating the 2D last draft to a position of an instep facing upward; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to generate a mirror centerline; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to generate a heel line; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) using the processor to generate a 2D collar line on the 2D last draft based on a technical package, or generate a 2D collar line by mapping a 3D projection collar line onto the 2D last draft, wherein the 3D projection collar line is generated by projecting a 2D simulation collar line onto a pre-constructed 3D last draft, and the 2D simulation collar line is generated from a parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing in the technical package; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) and using the processor to mirror the medial feather edge, the heel line and the 2D collar line by the mirror centerline, then connecting each segment, in order to generate the 2D mapping boundary. (Article of Manufacture version of claim 3. Similar rejection to claim 3. See claim 3) Motivation to combine similar to Claim 3. See Claim 3. Regarding Claim 18 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches The non-transitory computer readable storage media according to claim 17, wherein the step of using the processor to provide to the 3D upper further comprises: (Article of Manufacture version of claim 4. Similar rejection to claim 4. See claim 4) using the processor to generate a 2D collar line directly on the parallel projection view of the 2D design drawing based on the technical package, then projecting the 2D collar line onto a pre-constructed 3D last draft to generate the 3D collar line, or generating the 2D collar line on the 2D last draft based on a technical package, then mapping the 2D collar line onto the 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D collar line; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 4. Similar rejection to claim 4. See claim 4) using the processor to cut a 3D last draft surface in order to generate a post-cutting 3D last draft; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 4. Similar rejection to claim 4. See claim 4) and using the processor to apply a physical shoe data to perform shaping of the post-cutting 3D last draft in order to generate the 3D upper. (Article of Manufacture version of claim 4. Similar rejection to claim 4. See claim 4) Motivation to combine similar to Claim 4. See Claim 4. Regarding Claim 19 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches The non-transitory computer readable storage media according to claim 18, (See claim 18) wherein the step of using the processor to construct a 2D upper boundary further comprises: (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to construct a first intersection point for an intersection between the medial feather edge and the heel centerline, and construct a second intersection point for an intersection between the lateral feather edge and the heel centerline, and using the first intersection point and the second intersection point as starting points to respectively construct a feather edge separation point which is a non-overlapping starting point of the medial feather edge and the lateral feather edge along a direction toward a toe; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to construct a medial feather edge point for an intersection between the first instep reference line and the medial feather edge, and to construct a lateral feather edge point for an intersection between the first instep reference line and the lateral feather edge point; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to offset the tangent vector 5-8 millimeters outward from the medial feather edge point to construct a medial feather edge reference point, and offset the tangent vector 5-8 millimeters outward from the lateral feather edge point to generate a lateral feather edge reference point; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to offset a toe tip point 5-8 millimeters outward with respect to a horizontal direction of the mirror centerline in order to construct a toe tip reference point; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) using the processor to connect the toe tip reference point, the medial feather edge reference point and the feather edge separation point in order to construct a medial bottom line, and connect the toe tip reference point, the lateral feather edge reference point and the feather edge separation point in order to construct a lateral bottom line; (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) and using the processor to perform mirroring of the heel line, the 2D collar line and the medial bottom line based on the mirror centerline, followed by connecting each segment, in order to generate the 2D upper boundary. (Article of Manufacture version of claim 5. Similar rejection to claim 5. See claim 5) Motivation to combine similar to Claim 5. See Claim 5. Claim(s) 7 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of USPGPUB No. US20190286760A1 by Suessmuth et al. Regarding Claim 7 Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka teaches The shoe upper design model generating method according to claim 6, (See claim 6) each one of the part sections and the 2D mapping boundary being used to generate a design section correspondingly, (See Raffaeli: [p.140 §3.1] [p.147 §5.4], [FIG. 4 & 5]: The examiner interprets where each one of the part sections and the 2D mapping boundary being used to generate a design section correspondingly is shown in the unrolled curves defining the individual upper pieces (part sections) combined with the unrolled boundaries of the shoe last upper surface (2D mapping boundary) to extract and define the actual separate leather pattern pieces (the claimed design sections) used in manufacturing (see Section 5.4: "The two parts are flattened... curves follow the same transformations... curves are used as boundaries for leather pieces extraction", and Section 3.1: "All upper pieces are then defined using curves as boundaries"). Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the individual extracted upper pieces (design sections). See Kozuka: {[0009],[0049], [0080]}: The examiner interprets where each one of the part sections and the 2D mapping boundary being used to generate a design section correspondingly is shown in generating a 2D pattern of the main body portion (design section) where the outer periphery is set by intersecting the unrolled strips (part sections) with the boundary outlines.) and to construct a mapping relation between each one of the design sections and the 2D upper design area, (See Azariadis : {[§4], [§4.1-4.2], [§6], [FIG. 5 & 8]}: The examiner interprets where to construct a mapping relation between each one of the design sections and the 2D upper design area is shown in utilizing a processor to construct a bidirectional mathematical coordinate mapping relation M32 and M23 affine transformation matrices) between each corresponding 3D mesh triangle and 2D planar triangle of the unrolled layout. Since both the unrolled pattern panels (design sections) and the global sketch workspace (2D upper design area) are defined on and share the same 2D planar coordinate system of the flattened layout, a mathematical mapping relation naturally exists between them, allowing coordinate values to be projected between the design sections and the global sketching canvas.) thereby allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area. (See Azariadis : {[§4], [§4.1-4.2], [§6], [FIG. 5 & 8]}: The examine interprets where thereby allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area is shown in the unrolled planar layout and the 3D surface having a one-to-one correspondence of triangular mesh elements (grids), where the mapping matrices M23 and M32 operate on each corresponding pair of triangles (grids) to map coordinate coordinates and pixel values grid-to-grid. When a user draws a sketch in the planar development, each point inside the triangles is mapped between the 2D grids and the 3D surface grids. See Kozuka: {[0087],[FIG. 13A]}: The examiner interprets where thereby allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area is shown in dividing the unrolled pattern into triangular grids using finite element methods (FEM) to perform localized grid-to-grid mapping and deformation. Azariadis in combination with Raffael and Kozuka fails to explicitly teaches thereby allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area. Suessmuth teaches thereby allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area ([0086-0087]: “With the 2D CAD model 260, the 3D CAD model 250 and the feature points at hand, it is then possible to establish an accurate one-to-one (mathematically also called bijective) mapping 270 between the 2D CAD model 260 of the panels 220 and the surface of the 3D CAD model 250 of the last shell 240 for a given reference shoe last 230 for given material properties exhibited by the panels 220. The bijective mapping 270 enables the shoe designer or any other person involved in the product design or product development process to work with the 2D CAD model 260, the 3D CAD model 250, or both. With the bijective mapping 270 available, all modifications made to one of the CAD models 250 and 260 can then be transformed and visualized form 2D to 3D and vice versa, without additional effort for the designer. For example, the designer may attach certain design elements (e.g., logos, stripes, holes, letters, etc.) to the 2D CAD model and these design elements would be visualized on the 3D CAD model 250 and vice versa in a very short time or immediately.” [FIG. 2 a-b]: PNG media_image42.png 537 445 media_image42.png Greyscale The examiner interprets where thereby allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area is shown in establishing the mapping relation between the 2D CAD panel models and the global 3D/2D design models allowing the system to map and project local design elements (logos, stripes, holes, letters, etc.) grid-to-grid, thereby "allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area".) Suessmuth further teaches to construct a mapping relation between each one of the design sections and the 2D upper design area ([0086-0087], [FIG. 2 1-b], [0024]: “Consequently, the feature points represented in both the 3D and the 2D reference model may be used to generate a one-to-one correspondence (i.e., the first mapping) between the 2D reference model and the 3D reference model. For instance, the deformation of the at least one first panel can be determined by determining the changes in the relative position and/or the relative angles between the feature points.” The examiner interprets where to construct a mapping relation between each one of the design sections and the 2D upper design area is shown in using a processor to establish an accurate coordinate mapping relation between the 2D CAD model of individual panels (design sections) and the global 3D/2D CAD models (2D upper design area), allowing any design changes to be translated and visualized back and forth.) It would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in the field of shoe CAD development before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the mathematical flattening, bidirectional coordinate mapping, and 2D sketching framework of Azariadis (2000) with the standard anatomical side-splitting, boundary line definitions, and 2D upper pattern editing of Raffaeli (2011) and Kozuka, and further integrate the automatic coordinate centerline alignment of Xiong (2010) and standard curves of Mishra (2019) . The motivation to perform this combination is driven by well-known industry design incentives and market forces: namely, the need to automate the manual, error-prone translation of 3D virtual lasts into 2D leather cutting patterns, thereby reducing manufacturing costs, material waste, and labor time. A PHOSITA would look to integrate the general-purpose, high-precision mathematical mapping of Azariadis (2000) with the industry-standard boundaries of Raffaeli (2011) and Kozuka to create a robust, specialized computer-aided design platform. To make this unrolling system practically useful and automated, the developer would look to the teaching of Xiong (2010) to automatically orient and align the 2D last draft curves along a horizontal axis (instep facing upward) before unrolling, using standard vector averaging and tangent calculations. The unrolled medial and lateral profiles are then mirrored across a mirror centerline and connected to form a complete, closed unrolled 2D pattern boundary as taught by Raffaeli (2011). Standard projection techniques of Raffaeli (2011) and Marconi (2019) are utilized to accurately map simulated collar lines from 2D sketches onto 3D models. The resulting combination achieves the highly predictable result of projecting 2D style drawings onto 3D virtual shoe models with minimum conformal and dimensional distortion, satisfying all industry-standard boundary conditions. There is no unexpected or synergistic effect, and the method operates strictly according to the established functions of the individual prior art components. A PHOSITA would have had a high, reasonable expectation of success in executing this combination because all systems rely on compatible 3D software kernels (Rhinoceros SDK) and standardized data transfer formats (DXF, STEP). Regarding Claim 21 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, and Kozuka teaches The shoe upper design model generating system according to claim 20. (See claim 20) Suessmuth teaches wherein each one of the part sections and the 2D mapping boundary being used to generate a design section correspondingly, and to construct a mapping relation between each one of the design sections and the 2D upper design area, thereby allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area. (Article of Manufacture version of claim 7. Similar rejection to claim 7. See claim 7) Motivation to combine similar to Claim 7. See Claim 7. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL: “On using planar developments to perform texture mapping on arbitrarily curved surfaces” by Azariadis et al. (2000) in view of NPL: “Advanced computer aided technologies for design automation in footwear industry” by Raffaeli & Germani (2009) in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of NPL: “Rapid parametric design methods for shoe-last customization” by Wang et al., in further view of NPL: “Development of Orthopedic Insoles and Shoes 3D Design Process for Atypical Foot Morphologies” by Mishra et al., in further view of NPL: “A computer-aided design system for foot-feature-based shoe last customization” by Xiong et al., in further view of NPL: “A Digitally-enabled Integrated Approach to Design and Manufacture Shoe Lasts” by Marconi et al in further view of USPGPUB No. US20220312895A1 by Kozuka et al., in further view of USPGPUB No. US20190286760A1 by Suessmuth et al. Regarding Claim 14 Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Wang, Mishra, Xiong, and Marconi teaches The shoe upper design model generating system according to claim 13. (See claim 13) Azariadis in combination with Raffaeli, Kozuka, Suessmuth teaches wherein each one of the part sections and the 2D mapping boundary being used to generate a design section correspondingly, and to construct a mapping relation between each one of the design sections and the 2D upper design area, thereby allowing each one of the grids in the design section to be mapped onto grids of the 2D upper design area. (System version of claim 7. Similar rejection to claim 7. See claim 7) Motivation to similar to the combination of the dependent claim and the motivation to combine similar to claim 7. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARIC RAYJEE MARKS whose telephone number is (571)467-6372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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. /A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2188 /RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188