DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 12-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wali (US20210158596A1 -hereinafter Wali) in view of Sick et al. (EP3572203A1 -hereinafter Sick -As the machine translation attached) in view of Klahs et al. (NPL: “A refined method for digitally modeling small and complex plant structures in 3D: An example from the grasses (Poaceae).” (2018) -hereinafter Klahs).
Regarding Claim 1, Wali teaches:
A 3D printing …replica system comprising: (see Abstract; Wali: “A method, user device, and a printing device for manufacturing one or more customized products are provided.”)
a handheld computer user device having a software application including a camera (see [0022]; Wali: “The user device 100 may include, for example, a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop with image capturing techniques, a computing device with image capturing techniques.”) and…
wherein said application having a wireless communication channel for communicating with said 3D printing …replica manufacturer; (see [0045]; Wali: “The captured 3D images of the leg may be transmitted to a 3D printer using a wired or wireless network.” See [0037]: “The predefined format may be stored in the memory 302 of the printing device 300 by the manufacturer of the printing device 300.”)
wherein said ordering 3D printed …replicas including sending a photo …with said application to said 3D printing …replica manufacturer; (see Abstract; Wali: “transmitting the captured one or more 3D images to a printing device”)
wherein said 3D printing …replica manufacturer emulates said photo …with a 3D printed section…; (see [0007]; Wali: “wherein the one or more 3D objects are a replica of the one or more objects in the one or more captured 3D images and manufacturing one or more customized products using the created one or more 3D images.”)
wherein said emulating including matching said 3D printed section… with said photo…; and (see [0039]; Wali: “the one or more 3D objects, thus printed, are replicas of the one or more objects captured in the one or more received 3D images.”)
However, Wali does not explicitly teach:
…printing grass replica system…
…a contact link for contacting a 3D printing grass replica manufacturer;
wherein said contacting said 3D manufacturer including ordering 3D printed grass replicas;
…matching said 3D printed section of grass with said photo of natural grass; and
further wherein said matching including a matching color.
Sick from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
…printing grass replica system… (see page 2, first paragraph; Sick: “The invention relates to a method and system for selecting the color of artificial turf fiber and for a method of producing an artificial turf fiber of the selected color.”)
…a contact link for contacting a 3D printing grass replica manufacturer; (see page 6, third paragraph; Sick: “The wide range of applications for artificial turf corresponds to at least as wide a range of pigments, pigment mixtures, and other substances used to give the artificial turf fibers a desired color. The product portfolio of most manufacturers of artificial turf now includes not only many different shades of green, but also a broad spectrum of other colors. In some cases, manufacturers of artificial turf even offer to produce artificial turf that completely or partially is of a particular color specified by the customer.”)
wherein said contacting said 3D manufacturer including ordering 3D printed grass replicas; (see page 6, third paragraph; Sick: “a customer may wish to equip a pitch with artificial turf containing a club logo, an advertisement, or certain markings of a selected color.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wali to include Sick’s features of printing grass replica system; a contact link for contacting a 3D printing grass replica manufacturer; ordering 3D printed grass replicas. Doing so would provide for an improved method and system for selecting the color of artificial turf fiber and for an improved method of producing an artificial turf fiber of a particular color. (Sick, page 6, paragraph 9)
However, it does not explicitly teach …matching said 3D printed section of grass with said photo of natural grass; and further wherein said matching including a matching color.
Klahs from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
…matching said 3D printed section of grass with said photo of natural grass; (see page 1, left column, lines 5-8; Klahs: “Modeling intricate plant structures generally involves extracting two-dimensional (2D) images of a desired structure, interpreting those shapes, and then recreating the morphology in 3D.” See page 2, Fig. 1; Klahs: “The procedure includes (A) collecting fresh material and vouchering the specimen, (B) dissecting some spikelets while taking photographs, (C) fixing the material in gFAA and then dehydrating in a graded series of ethanol and xylene, (D) embedding in paraffin wax, (E) serial sectioning at 10 μm thickness with a microtome, mounting sections on a slide, and photographing to produce (F) images that will be used as references for 3D modeling.”)
and further wherein said matching including a matching color. (see page 6, right column, second paragraph; Klahs: “Spikelets should be photographed intact and before removal from the plant. These photos provide a record of complete synflorescence structure, as well as color for accurate rendering later, and can be used in presentations.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wali and Sick to include Klahs’s features of matching said 3D printed section of grass with said photo of natural grass; and including a matching color. One of ordinary skill in the art adapting the image of Wali to comprise grass, in light of the teachings of Sick for manufacturing grass, would achieve an expected and predictable result of 3D manufacturing a printed grass object having matching colors based on the grass photo. The application of Doing improves the resolution quality, the investment of time, and production cost. (Klahs, page 1, left column, lines 4-5)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Wali further teaches wherein said matching including a matching shape. (see [0040]; Wali: “the replication of the 3D objects would mean that the 3D objects will have the same size, shape, exact dimensions, and scale as that of the object captured in the one or more 3D images.”)
Claim 7 contains similar limitations to those in claims 1 and 3 are rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs as discussed connection with claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, Klahs further teaches further comprising a step of matching a height of said photo of natural grass with a height of said 3D printed section of grass. (see page 3, left column, last paragraph; Klahs: “Images are taken at appropriate magnifications, which may vary depending on species and the size of spikelets, using a light microscope and saved as TIF files. These images provide a framework for accurately sculpting the shape of the spikelet in the CAD software.”)
The same motivation to combine Wali, Sick, and Klahs a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 16.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wali in view of Sick in view of Klahs in view of Porter (US20220145529A1 -hereinafter Porter).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein said matching including a matching density.
Porter from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein said matching including a matching density. (see [0022]; Porter: “The density of the strands/blades 221 in the slice/section 220 may be varied widely to practice the invention and typically is selected to better replicate the look and texture of the covering being replicated, e.g., to have a density similar to natural moss, grass, roots, hair, and the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wali, Sick, and Klahs to include Porter’s features of said matching including a matching density. Doing so would improve the overall look. (Porter, [0006])
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; Sick further teaches …ordering 3D printed grass replicas. (see page 4, second paragraph: “Then, the customer may select one color 836 of a plurality of color selection articles 832, 834, 836 and order artificial grass having desired dimensions, a desired fiber type and thickness, and the same color as the color selection article 836.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach wherein said foundation section is a predetermined size during said ordering …grass replicas.
Porter from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein said foundation section is a predetermined size during said ordering …grass replicas. (see [0022]; Porter: “These are attached together to a substrate, surface, or support element 210 via an adhesive or other technique using a sectional base 240, e.g., an epoxy material or the like, which may be colored (e.g., integrally colored) to suit the assembly 200 such as to match the color applied to the strands 221”)
The same motivation to combine Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Porter a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Porter as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Porter as discussed connection with claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Porter as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Porter teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, Klahs further teaches further comprising a step of matching …said photo of natural grass with …said 3D printed section of grass. (see page 1, left column, lines 5-8; Klahs: “Modeling intricate plant structures generally involves extracting two-dimensional (2D) images of a desired structure, interpreting those shapes, and then recreating the morphology in 3D.” See page 2, Fig. 1; Klahs: “The procedure includes (A) collecting fresh material and vouchering the specimen, (B) dissecting some spikelets while taking photographs, (C) fixing the material in gFAA and then dehydrating in a graded series of ethanol and xylene, (D) embedding in paraffin wax, (E) serial sectioning at 10 μm thickness with a microtome, mounting sections on a slide, and photographing to produce (F) images that will be used as references for 3D modeling.”)
The same motivation to combine Wali, Sick, and Klahs a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 17.
Porter further teaches further comprising a step of matching a texture of said …natural grass with a texture of said 3D printed section of grass. (see [0022]; Porter: “The density of the strands/blades 221 in the slice/section 220 may be varied widely to practice the invention and typically is selected to better replicate the look and texture of the covering being replicated, e.g., to have a density similar to natural moss, grass, roots, hair, and the like.”)
The same motivation to combine Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Porter a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Porter as discussed connection with claim 6.
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wali in view of Sick in view of Klahs, in view of Lee (US20170183830A1 -hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein said matching including a matching type.
Lee from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein said matching including a matching type. (see [0154]; Lee: “Fresh Rye-polypropylene and Fresh-Rey polyethylene samples refer to the turf samples having a polymer type of the relaxed thatch yarn that makes turf appearance more similar to natural grass.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wali, Sick, and Klahs to include Lee’s features of including a matching type. Doing so would achieve exhibiting a high tuft bind strength, improved recyclability, and low cost. (Lee, [0005])
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Lee as discussed connection with claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Lee as discussed connection with claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wali in view of Sick in view of Klahs in view of Coon et al. (US20190352845A1 -hereinafter Coon).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising a foundation section, wherein said 3D printed section of grass is printed onto said foundation section.
Coon from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising a foundation section (see [0066]; Coon: “a primary backing component 204”), wherein said 3D printed section of grass is printed onto said foundation section. (see [0066]; Coon: “In still further aspects the primary backing can have a three dimensional structures.” See [0118]: “A plurality of face fibers 202 present in a yarn is attached to or tufted into a primary backing component 204 and is extending from a face surface 204 a of the primary backing component.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wali, Sick, and Klahs to include Coon’s features of said 3D printed section of grass is printed onto said foundation section. Doing so would have an improved recyclability and lower cost. (Coon, [0002])
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Coon as discussed connection with claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Coon as discussed connection with claim 5.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wali in view of Sick in view of Klahs in view of Weder (US20010000735A1 -hereinafter Weder) in view of Laker et al. (US20150217551A1 -hereinafter Laker).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Wali, Sick, and Klahs teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising the steps of: removing support structures from said 3D printed section of grass; smoothing surfaces of said 3D printed section of grass; and applying protective coatings to said 3d printed section of grass.
Weder from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising the steps of:
removing support structures from said 3D printed section of grass; (see [0044]; Weder: “This connecting engagement is preferably temporary in that the material may be easily removed, i.e., the cling material “clings” to the flower pot.”)
and applying protective coatings to said 3d printed section of grass. (see [0092]; Weder: “In addition, the material 162 may have various colorings, coatings, flocking and/or metallic finishes, applied separately or simultaneously, or may be characterized totally or partially by pearlescent, opaque, translucent, transparent, tinted, iridescent or the like, qualities.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wali, Sick, and Klahs to include Weder’s features of removing support structures from said 3D printed section of grass; and applying protective coatings to said 3d printed section of grass. Doing so would provide additional protection for the item. (Weder, [0070])
However, it does not explicitly teach smoothing surfaces of said 3D printed section of grass;
Laker from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: smoothing surfaces of said 3D printed section of grass; (see [0065]; Laker: “the lower and upper platens 210 a, 210 b can also allow for the production of a smooth and flat final product.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Wali, Sick, Klahs, and Weder to include Laker’s features of removing support structures from said 3D printed section of grass; and applying protective coatings to said 3d printed section of grass. Doing so would increase lamination speed and efficiency. (Laker, [0036])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Motz (US20040229007A1) discloses an infilled artificial surface has natural grass-like play characteristics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/DARRIN D DUNN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117