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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 13-41 in the reply filed on 3 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-19, 23-29, 35-38, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “the same resin comprises a same type of resin.” There is nothing in the originally filed disclosure which recites a same type of resin, when it comes to a composition of the resin. In paragraph [0063] from the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant application US 2024/0286362 (hereinafter “the specification”), there is disclosure that “TPU used as a material of the resin layer 30 is a type of plastic which can be generated by a polyaddition reaction…” However, as recited in the claim, it appears “the same type of resin” may include resins other than TPU, which is not supported.
Claims 23, 28 and 29 each recite “a hole.” There is no support for this limitation in the specification. The examiner suspects the applicant is referring to the cavity because hole is not disclosed in the specification at all. However, the scope of claims 23, 28 and 29 require both a hole (as recited in each of the respective claims) and a cavity (which is recited in claim 13, the claim from which each of claims 23, 28, and 29 ultimately depend). There is no support for two different elements (hole and cavity) which appear to identify the same thing.
Claim 25 recites “the first resin layer and the third resin layer are connected on at least two additional sides so that the cavity is bounded at least partly on three sides.” There is no support for this limitation in the specification.
Claim 26 recites “the second resin layer and connections on the at least two additional sides form protrusions.” There is no support for this limitation in the specification.
Claim 27 recites “the protrusion for the second resin layer has a different number of layers than the protrusions of the at least two additional sides.” There is no support for this limitation in the specification.
Claim 35 recites “at least one of the first resin layer and the third resin layer have printed thereon indicia.” There is no support for this limitation in the specification. The examiner notes, in paragraph [0094] of the specification, there is support for letters being printed on the T-shirt embodiment. However, there is no support for the much broader scope of indicia being printed thereon.
Claim 37 recites “the article comprises clothing.” There is no support for this limitation in the specification. The examiner notes, in paragraph [0052] of the specification, there is support for a variety of different articles of clothing. However, there is no support for the much broader scope of clothing.
Claim 40 recites “the article comprises a human accessory.” There is no support for this limitation in the specification. The examiner notes, in paragraph [0052] of the specification, there is support for “other accessories.” However, this falls short in providing support for the limitation in question.
Claims 18, 19, 24, 36, 38 and 41 are included in this rejection based on their dependency from either claim 17, 23, 35, 37 or 40.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “the same resin comprises a same type of resin.” The claim is indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clear with regards to what “type of resin” is being referenced and would be considered to be the same or different.
Claims 18 and 19 are included in this rejection based on their ultimate dependency from claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 14, 17, 18 and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0255103 (hereinafter “Dua”).Regarding claims 13, 17 and 18 Dua teaches a variety of woven textiles and knitted textiles, where the woven textiles or knitted textiles may be thermally bonded to other elements to form seams (abstract) Dua teaches a seam element (article) 600 comprising a first component (first resin layer) 601, a seam (second resin layer) 603, and a second component (third resin layer) 602, which is used by spreading out at a region including the seam (second resin layer) 603 (paragraphs [0123] – [0124]; and Figures 29 and 30). Dua illustrates when the seam element (article) 600 folds in a downward direction or direction where 601 and 602 overlaps with 603 (in a state folded at a region including the seam (second resin layer) 603), the seam (second resin layer) 603 is formed between the first component (first resin layer) 601 and the second component (third resin layer) 602 at one end of the first component (first resin layer) 601 and the second component (third resin layer) 602 (Figures 29 and 30). Dua teaches the seam element (article) 600 is a fabric including filaments which are solid when cooled (paragraphs [0074] and [0124]). This hardened state of the filaments of the fabric, when folded in the manner mentioned above, corresponds to in a state folded at a region including the second resin layer, a cavity is adjacent to the second resin layer and between the first resin layer and the third resin layer. See also Figures 29 and 30 from Dua. Dua teaches at least one of the components (first resin layer and second resin layer) 601, 602 includes a thermoplastic polymer material to aid in facilitating thermal bonding at the seam (third resin layer) 603, such as a thermoplastic polyurethane (paragraph [0075], [0091] – [0105], and [0122] – [0124]), which corresponds to the first resin layer, the second resin layer, and the third resin layer are formed by a same resin.Regarding claim 14 In addition, Dua illustrates when spread out, the seam (second resin layer) 603 forms a protrusion (Figures 29 and 30).Regarding claim 37-41 In addition, Dua teaches a variety of products may incorporate the woven textiles, including apparel (clothing) (e.g. shirts, pants, footwear (shoes)), containers (e.g., backpacks, bags (human accessory comprising a case)), etc. (paragraphs [0001], [0077], [0112] and [0122]).
Claims 13-17, 20-26, 28-32, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0009030 (hereinafter “Mark”).Regarding claims 13, 17 and 23 Mark teaches a manufactured part (article), made from a three dimensional printing process using any appropriate combination of materials including resins and polymers (paragraph [0136]), comprising a first resin layer, a second resin layer, and a third resin layer, which is used by spreading out at a region including the second resin layer (paragraphs [0004], [0170] and [0171], and Annotated Figure 9, shown below). Mark teaches the part (article) is in a folded state at a region including the second resin layer, a gap (cavity) 48 is adjacent to the second layer and between the first resin layer and the third resin layer (paragraph [0171] and Annotated Figure 9, shown below). Mark additionally illustrates the first resin layer and the third resin layer form a hole (Annotated Figure 9, shown above).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mark also teaches the three dimensional printing process includes the deposition of an initial layer, cutting of the initial layer after a predetermined thickness was applied, and application of a subsequent layer (paragraphs [0133] and [0146], and Figure 2), which corresponds to the aforementioned first resin layer, second resin layer, and third resin layer are formed by a same resin or same type of resin.Regarding claims 14 and 15 In addition, Mark illustrates: (1) when spread out, the second resin layer comprises a protrusion; and (2) the article comprises a plurality of sides and wherein the protrusion is between two sides of the article (Annotated Figure 9, shown above).Regarding claims 16, 24, 30 and 31 The limitations: “the cavity [or hole] is for passing through a part of a body of a person;” “the first resin layer, the second resin layer, and the third resin layer form at least part of a sleeve of a garment;” and “in the folded state, the cavity is formed between the sleeve and another part of the article” have been considered. However, these limitations merely recite the intended uses of the claimed article, and fails to provide any additional structure to the claimed article. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. There is currently no evidence of record which establishes any structural difference between the prior art product and the claimed product when considering the intended use recitations from the claims. See MPEP §2114(II).Regarding claim 20 In addition, Mark teaches each of the first resin layer, the second resin layer, and the third resin layer are made by an additive manufacturing technique (3D printed) (Annotated Figure 9, shown above; Figures 1, 7, 8 and 10; and paragraphs [0126] – [0127]).Regarding claim 21 The use of product-by-process limitations has been noted in claim 21, for example, "the cavity is formed by positioning a layer between the first resin layer and the third resin layer, and thereafter removing the layer". "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, "although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product", In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP §2113. Moreover, due to the fact that the layer recited in claim 21 is removed by the recited process to form the claimed article, the presence of the layer itself is not required to meet the structure of the claimed article because the presence of the layer is in reference to an intermediate product, where the claims are directed to a final product. There is currently no evidence of record that establishes a structural difference of the final product when the aforementioned intermediate product undergoes the process recited in claim 21.Regarding claim 22 The limitations recited in claim 22 to define “the layer” of claim 21 have been considered. However, these limitations are not required to meet the structure of the claimed article for the same reasons recited in the rejection of claim 21 above.Regarding claims 25 and 26 In addition, Mark illustrates the first resin layer and the third resin layer are connected on one side via the second resin layer (Annotated Figure 9, shown above). Mark illustrates an embodiment where a gap or void 1806, 1812, 1816, 1820 includes intermediate layers (connections comprising a protrusion) defining the sides of the gap or void (analogous to the second layer defining the gap 48 from Figure 9) which are present along at least three sides of the gap or void (Figures 37-39), which corresponds to the first resin layer and the third resin layer are connected on at least two additional sides so that the cavity is bound at least partly on three sides.Regarding claims 28 and 29 In addition, Mark illustrates the second resin layer 52, 54 has a hole (Annotated Figure 9, shown above).Regarding claim 32 In addition, Mark teaches the printing process (including at least one of the first resin layer or the third resin layer) is done (are printed) in a fill pattern (Figures 25 and 35; and paragraphs [0067], [0222], [0236] and [0257]).Regarding claim 33 In addition, Mark teaches the liquid resin material 1604 may be cured in a pattern corresponding to lines 1624 oriented perpendicular to the direction of the deposited strands of the core filament 1608 (paragraph [0257] and Figure 35), where a combination of the curing direction 1624 and the direction of the deposited strands 1608 being perpendicular to each other corresponds to a lattice shape.Regarding claim 35 In addition, Mark teaches the deposition of inks on the surface of the three dimensional printed part (paragraph [0145]), which corresponds to indicia printed on at least one of the first resin layer and the third resin layer.
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.
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.
Claims 18, 19 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark as applied to either claim 13 or 17 above, and further in view of WO 2020/190277 A1 (hereinafter “Olubummo”).Regarding claim 18 The limitations for claim 17 have been set forth above. In addition, Mark teaches the matrix material used in the three dimensional printing process includes any appropriate resin or polymer, such as thermoplastics, and may be in powder form (paragraphs [0127], [0131], [0136], and [0252]). Mark does not explicitly teach the thermoplastic (same type of resin) comprises thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU). Olubummo teaches three-dimensional printing kits, and method of making three-dimensional printed articles (abstract). Olubummo teaches the three-dimensionally printed kits include a powder bed material including polymer particles of thermoplastic polymers, where the polymer particles include thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (paragraphs [0013] and [0015]). Therefore, Olubummo establishes a functional equivalence between the thermoplastics generally taught by Mark and a thermoplastic polyurethane for use as powdered polymer particle starting materials in a 3D printing method for forming a 3D printed article. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the matrix material of Mark, and substituting the thermoplastic resin or polymer of Mark with the thermoplastic polyurethane, as taught by Olubummo, motivated by the desire to form a conventional thermoplastic powdered polymer starting material for 3D printing of an article, comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in forming such a 3D printed article.Regarding claim 19 In addition, Olubummo teaches the use of detailing agents to include colorants (paragraph [0047]). However, the combination of Mark and Olubummo does not explicitly teach the TPU for at least one of the first resin layer, the second resin layer, or the third resin layer is of a different color than at least one other of the first resin layer, the second resin layer, or the third resin layer. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to determine appropriate colors for each of the first resin layer, the second resin layer, or the third resin layer relative to at least one other of the first resin layer, the second resin layer, or the third resin layer merely for aesthetic purposes. It has been found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.04(I).Regarding claim 34 The limitations for claim 13 have been set forth above. In addition, Olubummo teaches the use of detailing agents to include colorants (paragraph [0047]). However, the combination of Mark and Olubummo does not explicitly teach the first resin layer and the third resin layer are printed in different colors. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to use different colors for the first resin layer and the third resin layer merely for aesthetic purposes. It has been found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.04(I).
Claim 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark as applied to either claim 26 or 35 above.Regarding claim 27 The limitations for claim 26 have been set forth above. In addition, Mark does not explicitly teach the protrusion for the second resin layer has a different number of layers than the protrusions of the at least two additional sides. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate number of additional intermediate layers (protrusions) on different sides of the gaps to tailor the gap to have a geometry for a desired application, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).Regarding claim 36 The limitations for claim 35 have been set forth above. In addition, Mark does not explicitly teach the protrusion for the second resin layer has a different number of layers than the protrusions of the at least two additional sides. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate number of additional intermediate layers (protrusions) on different sides of the gaps to tailor the gap to have a geometry for a desired application, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0341305 teaches a 3D printed object made using a 3D printing system, where the object may be formed into a variety of clothing, apparel, and equipment products (abstract and paragraphs [0032] – [0044]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783