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 .
Detailed Office Action
1. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
2. Independent claims 1, 9, 10 as amended each recites “a test in which an image is applied to a three-dimensional medium or a three-dimensional test medium corresponding to the medium in a physical space based on the print settings.” The phrase “in a physical space” is a newly added limitation.
Applicant states that with this new limitation, the structure defined by the claims is not disclosed or suggested by Adams (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0113412 A1) (note the last sentence of the top paragraph of page 6 of the REMARKS), and that process of Adams, discussed by Applicant (see the middle paragraph on page 6 of the REMARKS), in volves no physical application.
The claim language including the new limitation “in a physical space”, i.e., “corresponding to the medium in a physical space”, however, does not define over the prior art Adams. The purpose of generating a test image or a print file, including the purpose of Adams’, is so that the test image “looks” real or looks as real as it can be when applied to or printed on a medium in a physical space. In this case, even though or even if in Adams the combining of the three-dimensional object file and the two-dimensional image file is carried out in software ……, resulting in a new, merged digital file suitable for printing, as stated by Applicant (the middle paragraph of page 6 of the REMARKS), the “medium” that this digital file “corresponds to” is a medium in a physical space. The claim language “corresponding to” in each of claims 1, 9, and 10 does not carry patentable weight. A digital file presenting an image can be said to correspond to a medium, a medium in physical space, such as that to be formed on with an image.
Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 10 as amended are not patently distinct from the prior art Adams.
The rejections stand.
This Office Action is made final.
3. The rejections from the previous Office Action dated January 2, 2025 are modified in consideration to the newly added language and repeated below.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
4. Claims 1, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Adams (US 2017/0113412 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Adam discloses a printed matter production system (system
and method for printing a three-dimensional object incorporating an image) (Fig. 2, para
0036-0037) comprising:
a reception unit (in first computer device 202 of Fig. 2, a kiosk operated by a user
as described in para 0044; refer to computing device 100 in Fig. 1A and para 0020) that
receives print settings (para 0045, first computing device 200 is configured to receive a
two dimensional image file, to merge the two dimensional image file with a file
representing a three dimensional object, producing a three dimensional print file, and to
print, using the rapid prototyping device 201, which means that the received file
inherently include print settings);
a production unit (in first computing device 202 in Fig. 2) that controls a
production device (rapid prototyping device 201) to form an image on a three-
dimensional medium and produce printed matter based on the print settings (para
0045); and
a test unit (in first computing device 202 in Fig. 2) that performs a test in which
the image is applied to the medium or a three-dimensional test medium corresponding
to the medium in a physical space based on the print settings before forming the image on the medium (para 0054: "The first computing device 202 may merge the file describing the three-dimensional object with the two-dimensional image file by producing a three-dimensional print file in which the two dimensional image is projected onto an exterior surface of the three-dimensional object") to make a user determine whether or not the print settings are appropriate (para 0054: “…… once the user is satisfied and places their order") (with respect to the newly added language “in a physical space”, please see response to Applicant’s arguments addressed in section 2 above),
wherein the test is performed without performing printing on the medium and the
test medium (para 0054: “…… the two dimensional image is projected onto an exterior
surface of the three-dimensional object”).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected as being corresponding to apparatus claim 1.
Claim 9 is a method claim. Claim 10 recites "A non-transitory computer readable storge
me medium storing a printed matter production program that causes a computer to
function as …… ". Further regarding claim 10, also refer to Fig. 1A and para 0021+.
Regarding claim 6/1, the test unit (in computing device 202 of Fig. 2) projects the
image onto the medium or the test medium corresponding to the medium based
on the print settings by using a projection device to make the user determine whether or
not the print settings are appropriate (para 0045: "The first computing device 202 may
merge the file describing the three-dimensional object with the two-dimensional image
file by producing a three-dimensional print file in which the two dimensional image is
projected onto an exterior surface of the three-dimensional object") (para 0054: "……
once the user is satisfied and places their order").
Regarding claim 8/6, the test unit (in first computing device 202 of Fig. 2) projects
the image in same dimensions as when the production unit produces the printed matter
(the dimensions of the image projected on the exterior surface of the three-dimensional
object inherently includes dimensions that are the same as when the rapid prototyping
device 201 in Fig. 2 prints the image, para 0040, 0045).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2-5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claims.
Adams (US 2017/0113412 A1), discussed above, does not disclose the
limitations of claim 2 or the limitations of claim 7, in combination with the limitations of
the base claim 1 (for claim 2) or the limitations of claim 6/1.
Claims 3-5 depend on claim 2.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEUKFAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 a.m. - 6 p.m.
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, BENNY TIEU can be reached at (571)272-7490. 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.
/CHEUKFAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682