DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 submitted on 04/09/2026 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 3-6, and 12-15 have been amended.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent application No. JP2023109412, filed on 07/03/2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a "product shape acquisition unit configured to acquire...", a “simplicity-level acquisition unit configured to acquire…”, a "simplified shape generation unit configured to determine...", and a "simplified shape output unit configured to output...' " in claims 12 and 13. The limitations use the nonce terms "product shape acquisition unit", “simplicity-level acquisition unit”, "simplified shape generation unit", and "simplified shape output unit" which are modified by functional language, i.e., "to acquire”, "to determine”, and "to output ", and are not modified by sufficient structure for performing the acquiring, determining, or outputting. The corresponding structures are found in Fig. 9 and ¶0096 of the instant specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are directed to a process, claim 12 is directed to a machine, and claim 13 is directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
an order supporting method of supporting an order of a predetermined product including any one of clothing, footwear, accessories, and a product utilized to conform to a part of a body, the method comprising:
acquiring, product shape information relating to a product shape of the predetermined product in a format, or another format allowing the predetermined product;
acquiring, simplicity-level information set according to a level of security in the product shape information;
determining, a reduced granularity for simplified shape information indicating a simplified shape of the predetermined product based on the simplicity-level information;
generating, based on the product shape information, the simplified shape information indicating the simplified shape of the predetermined product with the reduced granularity by at least one of: (i) increasing a voxel size representing the product shape information, (ii) reducing a number of points in a point cloud representing the product shape information, or (iii) reducing a number of divisions of a bounding box representing the product shape information, the simplified shape information enabling calculation of manufacturing condition information relating to a manufacturing condition of the predetermined product, in a manufacturing section configured to manufacture the predetermined product; and
outputting, the simplified shape information for calculation of the manufacturing condition information relating to the manufacturing condition of the predetermined product.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that it recites a commercial interaction. Claims 12 and 13 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1, 12, and 13 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements that are bolded:
a computer-executed order supporting method of supporting an order of a predetermined product including any one of clothing, footwear, accessories, and a product utilized to conform to a part of a body, the method comprising:
acquiring, by a computer, product shape information relating to a product shape of the predetermined product in a format processable by computer aided design software, computer aided engineering software, or another format allowing the predetermined product to be 3D printed;
acquiring, by the computer, simplicity-level information set according to a level of security in the product shape information;
determining, by the computer, a reduced granularity for simplified shape information indicating a simplified shape of the predetermined product based on the simplicity-level information;
generating, by the computer, based on the product shape information, the simplified shape information indicating the simplified shape of the predetermined product with the reduced granularity by at least one of: (i) increasing a voxel size representing the product shape information, (ii) reducing a number of points in a point cloud representing the product shape information, or (iii) reducing a number of divisions of a bounding box representing the product shape information, the simplified shape information enabling calculation of manufacturing condition information relating to a manufacturing condition of the predetermined product, in a manufacturing section configured to manufacture the predetermined product; and
outputting, by the computer, the simplified shape information for calculation of the manufacturing condition information relating to the manufacturing condition of the predetermined product.
Claims 12 and 13 include the same additional elements as claim 1. In addition, claims 12 and 13 include additional elements such as a product shape acquisition unit, a simplicity-level acquisition unit, a simplified shape generation unit, and a simplified shape output unit.
The additional elements recited in claims 1, 12, and 13 merely invoke such elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Fig. 9 and ¶0096).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, claims 1, 12, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above, while the recitation of the additional elements in independent claims 1, 12, and 13 are acknowledged, claims 1, 12, and 13 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 12, and 13 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 12, and 13 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 12, and 13 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 14-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 14-20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 13. Claims 2-9, 11, and 14-20 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 14-20 are ineligible.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims recite additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 13: information processing device of a user (claim 10). However, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 10 are ineligible.
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. 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.
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) 1-8 and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (US 2018/0173826 A1 [previously cited]) in view of Isaacson et al. (US 11,836,774 B2 [previously cited]) in view of Wu et al. (US 2013/0177234 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, White et al., hereinafter, White, discloses a computer-executed order supporting method of supporting an order of a predetermined product including a product utilized to conform to a part of a body, the method comprising (Figs. 1 and 2A; Abstract[The first object model data may be transformed, using the processor, to determine second object model data representing a modified first three-dimensional object which is distended in the object region represented by the identified portion of the first object model data]):
acquiring, by a computer, product shape information relating to a product shape of the predetermined product in a format processable by computer aided design software, computer aided engineering software, or another format allowing the predetermined product to be 3D printed (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0019[Block 102 comprises acquiring first object model data representing a first three-dimensional object. The object may be an object to be generated in additive manufacturing. The data may for example comprise a voxel representation of an object, or a ‘wireframe’, mesh or vector representation of the object. In some examples, the data may comprise a representation of the object's surface. The data may for example be stored using a 3MF format, Stereolithography (STL) file format, OBJ file format, or any other file format capable of representing a three dimensional object.]; Examiner notes that the “first object model” is comparable to the instant “product shape information”);
acquiring, by the computer, simplicity-level information set according to a level of security in the product shape information (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0039[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region. For example, this may specify a minimum thickness of ‘padding’ to be applied to each point on the surface, may set a variable for a level of noise, and/or may set a threshold similarity constraint (such that the original and distended portions are different by at least a predetermined amount)]);
determining, by the computer, a simplified shape information indicating a simplified shape of the predetermined product based on the simplicity-level information (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0039[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region. For example, this may specify a minimum thickness of ‘padding’ to be applied to each point on the surface, may set a variable for a level of noise, and/or may set a threshold similarity constraint (such that the original and distended portions are different by at least a predetermined amount)]);
generating, by the computer, based on the product shape information, the simplified shape information indicating the simplified shape of the predetermined product, the simplified shape information enabling calculation of manufacturing condition information relating to a manufacturing condition of the predetermined product, in a manufacturing section configured to manufacture the predetermined product (Fig. 1 and 2A; ¶0025[Block 106 comprises transforming the first object model data to determine second object model data representing a modified first three-dimensional object which is distended in the identified object region. The modified first three-dimensional object may be substantially the same as the original first three-dimensional object in other object regions (i.e. it may be substantially the same as the first three-dimensional object outside the identified object region(s)). The transformation may be applied to the data portion(s) representing the identified object region(s) to be concealed (and, in some examples, not to other data portions)] in view of ¶0027[the second object model data may be to be distributed as part as an object generation workflow, for example being supplied to allow ‘batching’ of a number of objects to be generated at once. In batching processes, a number of the same or different objects may be considered for fabricating in a single build operation, and the batching process may comprise arranging the objects.]; Examiner notes that the “second object model” is comparable to the instant “simplified shape information”); and
outputting, by the computer, the simplified shape information for calculation of the manufacturing condition information relating to the manufacturing condition of the predetermined product (Fig. 5[a representation of an interface in association with a display device and user input device]; ¶0050[The interface 500 is operable to control the display device 502 to display the object and the modified object, for example simultaneously or consecutively or in some other manner. Such a display may allow the user to verify that the portion of the object to be concealed is sufficiently obscured. The display device 502 may also display build cost information.]).
Although White discloses supporting an order of a product, White does not explicitly disclose order of a product including any one of clothing, footwear, accessories, and a product,
However, Isaacson et al., hereinafter, Isaacson, teaches ordering and generating custom jewelry (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 7-16 [For example, a server for generating custom jewelry through a step-by-step customization process can be configured to send display instructions over a network to display a plurality of available selections for a first customization option at a remote computer system. The server can also access a first product photo based on a user selection at the remote computer system of an available selection for the first customization option.]).
The method of Isaacson is applicable to the method of White as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to product customization and generation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product customization as disclosed by White to include accessories and clothing as taught by Isaacson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of White in order to improve the custom jewelry design process (Col. 3, line 67 to Col. 4, line 1).
Although White discloses generating a simplified shape, White in view of Isaacson does not explicitly teach determining a reduced granularity for shape information, and generating a shape with the reduced granularity by at least one of: (i) increasing a voxel size representing the product shape information, (ii) reducing a number of points in a point cloud representing the product shape information, or (iii) reducing a number of divisions of a bounding box representing the product shape information.
However, Wu et al., hereinafter, Wu, teaches increasing voxel size representing product shape information (Fig. 7; ¶0051[Thus, at step 702, a plurality of new voxels is generated by increasing the voxel size. As discussed above, the size of the voxels of the plurality of initial voxels is set to a predetermined voxel size, e.g., 2 mm.times.2 mm.times.2 mm. The union set determination module 204 increases the size of the voxels to a new size. For example, the union set determination module 204 can double the dimensions of a voxel, e.g., the voxels of a new voxel can be set to 4 mm.times.4 mm.times.4 mm.] in view of ¶0028[A bounding box 300 is a 3D space with defined parameters, which contains all the points in the received object 100. It is appreciated that the bounding box can be a cube, a cuboid, a rectangular prism, a hexahedron, a sphere, a pyramid, or any other 3D shape.]; According to ¶0057 of the instant specification the voxel is the “smallest unit for expressing a solid object on a computer”).
The method of Wu is applicable to the method of White in view of Isaacson as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to product customization and generation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product customization as taught by White in view of Isaacson to include increasing voxel size as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of White in view of Isaacson in order to design parts, e.g., computer-aided design (CAD) applications, and for performing analytical applications such as safety testing, vibration analysis, and computational fluid dynamics analysis (¶0003).
Regarding Claim 2, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White discloses further comprising acquiring the manufacturing condition information calculated based on the simplified shape information (Fig. 3[element 306]; ¶0041[In block 306, an indication of a cost of manufacture associated with the second object model data is determined and, in block 308, displayed to a user]).
Regarding Claim 3, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White discloses wherein the simplicity-level is set by a user (Fig. 3[element 304]; ¶0039[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region. For example, this may specify a minimum thickness of ‘padding’ to be applied to each point on the surface, may set a variable for a level of noise, and/or may set a threshold similarity constraint (such that the original and distended portions are different by at least a predetermined amount)]),
the simplified shape information is generated based on the simplicity-level information (Fig. 3; ¶0040[In some examples, block 302 and/or block 304 may comprise interacting with an image of the object presented on a screen, for example indicating points or regions, expanding and contracting the object changing variables and/or receiving a visual feedback of the result.]), and
the manufacturing condition information is calculated with an accuracy according to the simplicity-level information (Fig. 3[elements 304 and 306]; ¶0041[In block 306, an indication of a cost of manufacture associated with the second object model data is determined and, in block 308, displayed to a user]).
Regarding Claim 4, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White discloses wherein the level of security is set by the user (Fig. 3[element 304]; ¶0039[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region. For example, this may specify a minimum thickness of ‘padding’ to be applied to each point on the surface, may set a variable for a level of noise, and/or may set a threshold similarity constraint (such that the original and distended portions are different by at least a predetermined amount)]; Examiner notes that the “user input indicative of a degree of distension” is comparable to a “level of security set by the user”).
Regarding Claim 5, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White discloses wherein the simplified shape is expressed by using at least one of a voxel, the point cloud, and the bounding box (Figs. 2A-2E; ¶0035[In one example, as shown in FIG. 2A, data representing a concavity in the identified object region is transformed to at least partially reduce the depth of the concavity. This may comprise, for example, in effect filling a concavity with material, either by mapping a surface to another surface in which the concavity is shallower, or as in the example of the figure, non-existent, or by ‘adding’ material directly, for example adding voxels into the concavity. FIG. 2A shows a cup 200 having a liquid containing cavity. In generating the modified version of the cup, the portion of cup 200 comprising the cavity is replaced such that an original concave inner surface 202 is replaced with a distended surface 204, spanning the mouth of the concavity. The relationship between the original and the distended surface is shown using arrows.]).
Regarding Claim 6, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 3, White discloses wherein the simplified shape is expressed by using at least one of a voxel, the point cloud, and the bounding box (Figs. 2A-2E; ¶¶0035-0036[In a voxel-based object, there may be a condition that each location corresponds to at most a single voxel.] and ¶0042[For example, each applied distension could be reviewed by a user, who may opt to increase or decrease the amount of additional material to be added, or to change the type of distension applied, to create a modified object. For example, a ‘slider’ graphical interface may be provided. The control to add or remove material may be control at the level of voxels.]).
Regarding Claim 7, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White discloses wherein generating the simplified shape information comprises extracting at least one item of simplified shape information, out of a plurality of items of simplified shape information, based on a product shape indicated by the product shape information to generate the simplified shape information (Fig. 1; ¶0033[For example, in the above described case of a cup 200, and as shown in FIG. 2B, an identified data portion of the handle 206 may be replaced with a cuboid 208 fully enclosing the handle and the void between the handle and the cup body (in some examples, the smallest cuboid which fully encloses the handle). Instead of a single cuboid (or other shapes), a plurality of shapes could be used to fill the area. In another example, as shown in FIG. 2C, the shape of the handle 206 may be obscured by replacing it with at least one shape 210 (in this example, a cylinder) which follow the form thereof (i.e. data indicating the presence of the void may be retained). In some examples the shapes 210 may be user selected or determined automatically. Such shapes could include shapes having quadratic surfaces such as cones, cylinders, ellipsoids, spheroids, spheres, hyperboloids, paraboloids and the like.] in view of ¶0019).
Regarding Claim 8, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White discloses wherein the manufacturing condition information includes at least any one item of information relating to a price and information relating to a lead time, in manufacturing the predetermined product by the manufacturing section (¶0042[The price may increase as the degree of distension increases and in some examples blocks 304 to 308 may be carried out in a number of cycles until the user is satisfied with the balance between the level of concealment provided to the design and the cost of manufacture.]).
Regarding Claim 10, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White discloses further comprising outputting the acquired manufacturing condition information to an information processing device of a user (Fig. 5[a representation of an interface in association with a display device and user input device]; ¶0050[The interface 500 is operable to control the display device 502 to display the object and the modified object, for example simultaneously or consecutively or in some other manner. Such a display may allow the user to verify that the portion of the object to be concealed is sufficiently obscured. The display device 502 may also display build cost information.]); and
receiving an order from the user, based on the manufacturing condition (Fig. 3; ¶¶0039-0041[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region… In block 306, an indication of a cost of manufacture associated with the second object model data is determined and, in block 308, displayed to a user]; Examiner notes that receiving object model data representing a 3D object to be generated is comparable to receiving an order from a user).
Regarding Claim 11, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White discloses wherein the predetermined product is manufactured by an additive manufacturing technique or a three- dimensional build-up technique (Fig. 1; ¶0019[Block 102 comprises acquiring first object model data representing a first three-dimensional object. The object may be an object to be generated in additive manufacturing.]).
Regarding Claim 12, White discloses an order supporting system for supporting an order and a manufacture of a predetermined product including a product utilized to conform to a part of a body, the system comprising (Figs. 1 and 2A; Abstract[The first object model data may be transformed, using the processor, to determine second object model data representing a modified first three-dimensional object which is distended in the object region represented by the identified portion of the first object model data]):
a product shape acquisition unit configured to acquire product shape information relating to a product shape of the predetermined product in a format processable by computer aided design software, computer aided engineering software, or another format allowing the predetermined product to be 3D printed (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0019[Block 102 comprises acquiring first object model data representing a first three-dimensional object. The object may be an object to be generated in additive manufacturing. The data may for example comprise a voxel representation of an object, or a ‘wireframe’, mesh or vector representation of the object. In some examples, the data may comprise a representation of the object's surface. The data may for example be stored using a 3MF format, Stereolithography (STL) file format, OBJ file format, or any other file format capable of representing a three dimensional object.]; Examiner notes that the “first object model” is comparable to the instant “product shape information”);
a simplicity-level acquisition unit configured to acquire simplicity-level information set according to a level of security in the product shape information (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0039[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region. For example, this may specify a minimum thickness of ‘padding’ to be applied to each point on the surface, may set a variable for a level of noise, and/or may set a threshold similarity constraint (such that the original and distended portions are different by at least a predetermined amount)]);
a simplified shape generation unit configured to determine a simplified shape information indicating a simplified shape of the predetermined product based on the simplicity-level information (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0039[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region. For example, this may specify a minimum thickness of ‘padding’ to be applied to each point on the surface, may set a variable for a level of noise, and/or may set a threshold similarity constraint (such that the original and distended portions are different by at least a predetermined amount)]) and
generate, based on the product shape information, the simplified shape information indicating the simplified shape of the predetermined product, the simplified shape information enabling calculation of information relating to a condition for manufacturing the predetermined product in a manufacturing section that manufactures the predetermined product (Fig. 1 and 2A; ¶0025[Block 106 comprises transforming the first object model data to determine second object model data representing a modified first three-dimensional object which is distended in the identified object region. The modified first three-dimensional object may be substantially the same as the original first three-dimensional object in other object regions (i.e. it may be substantially the same as the first three-dimensional object outside the identified object region(s)). The transformation may be applied to the data portion(s) representing the identified object region(s) to be concealed (and, in some examples, not to other data portions)] in view of ¶0027[the second object model data may be to be distributed as part as an object generation workflow, for example being supplied to allow ‘batching’ of a number of objects to be generated at once. In batching processes, a number of the same or different objects may be considered for fabricating in a single build operation, and the batching process may comprise arranging the objects.]; Examiner notes that the “second object model” is comparable to the instant “simplified shape information”); and
a simplified shape output unit configured to output the simplified shape information for calculation of the manufacturing condition information relating to the manufacturing condition of the predetermined product (Fig. 5[a representation of an interface in association with a display device and user input device]; ¶0050[The interface 500 is operable to control the display device 502 to display the object and the modified object, for example simultaneously or consecutively or in some other manner. Such a display may allow the user to verify that the portion of the object to be concealed is sufficiently obscured. The display device 502 may also display build cost information.]).
Although White discloses supporting an order of a product, White does not explicitly disclose order of a product including any one of clothing, footwear, accessories, and a product,
However, Isaacson teaches ordering and generating custom jewelry (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 7-16 [For example, a server for generating custom jewelry through a step-by-step customization process can be configured to send display instructions over a network to display a plurality of available selections for a first customization option at a remote computer system. The server can also access a first product photo based on a user selection at the remote computer system of an available selection for the first customization option.]).
The system of Isaacson is applicable to the system of White as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to product customization and generation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product customization as disclosed by White to include accessories and clothing as taught by Isaacson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of White in order to improve the custom jewelry design process (Col. 3, line 67 to Col. 4, line 1).
Although White discloses generating a simplified shape, White in view of Isaacson does not explicitly teach determining a reduced granularity for shape information, and generating a shape with the reduced granularity by at least one of: (i) increasing a voxel size representing the product shape information, (ii) reducing a number of points in a point cloud representing the product shape information, or (iii) reducing a number of divisions of a bounding box representing the product shape information.
However, Wu teaches increasing voxel size representing product shape information (Fig. 7; ¶0051[Thus, at step 702, a plurality of new voxels is generated by increasing the voxel size. As discussed above, the size of the voxels of the plurality of initial voxels is set to a predetermined voxel size, e.g., 2 mm.times.2 mm.times.2 mm. The union set determination module 204 increases the size of the voxels to a new size. For example, the union set determination module 204 can double the dimensions of a voxel, e.g., the voxels of a new voxel can be set to 4 mm.times.4 mm.times.4 mm.] in view of ¶0028[A bounding box 300 is a 3D space with defined parameters, which contains all the points in the received object 100. It is appreciated that the bounding box can be a cube, a cuboid, a rectangular prism, a hexahedron, a sphere, a pyramid, or any other 3D shape.]; According to ¶0057 of the instant specification the voxel is the “smallest unit for expressing a solid object on a computer”).
The system of Wu is applicable to the system of White in view of Isaacson as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to product customization and generation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product customization as taught by White in view of Isaacson to include increasing voxel size as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of White in view of Isaacson in order to design parts, e.g., computer-aided design (CAD) applications, and for performing analytical applications such as safety testing, vibration analysis, and computational fluid dynamics analysis (¶0003).
Regarding Claim 13, White discloses a non-transitory recording medium for recording an order supporting program for supporting an order of a predetermined product including a product utilized to conform to a part of a body, the program causing (Figs. 1 and 6; Abstract[The first object model data may be transformed, using the processor, to determine second object model data representing a modified first three-dimensional object which is distended in the object region represented by the identified portion of the first object model data] in view of ¶0058):
a computer to realize (Figs. 4-6; ¶0058[The machine readable instructions may, for example, be executed by a general purpose computer, a special purpose computer]);
a product shape acquisition unit to acquire product shape information relating to a product shape of the predetermined product in a format processable by computer aided design software, computer aided engineering software, or another format allowing the predetermined product to be 3D printed (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0019[Block 102 comprises acquiring first object model data representing a first three-dimensional object. The object may be an object to be generated in additive manufacturing. The data may for example comprise a voxel representation of an object, or a ‘wireframe’, mesh or vector representation of the object. In some examples, the data may comprise a representation of the object's surface. The data may for example be stored using a 3MF format, Stereolithography (STL) file format, OBJ file format, or any other file format capable of representing a three dimensional object.]; Examiner notes that the “first object model” is comparable to the instant “product shape information”);
a simplicity-level acquisition unit configured to acquire simplicity-level information set according to a level of security in the product shape information (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0039[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region. For example, this may specify a minimum thickness of ‘padding’ to be applied to each point on the surface, may set a variable for a level of noise, and/or may set a threshold similarity constraint (such that the original and distended portions are different by at least a predetermined amount)]);
a simplified shape generation unit to determine a simplified shape information indicating a simplified shape of the predetermined product based on the simplicity-level information (Figs. 1 and 5; ¶0039[Block 304 comprises receiving a user input indicative of a degree of distension to be applied to the object region. For example, this may specify a minimum thickness of ‘padding’ to be applied to each point on the surface, may set a variable for a level of noise, and/or may set a threshold similarity constraint (such that the original and distended portions are different by at least a predetermined amount)]) and
generate, based on the product shape information, the simplified shape information indicating the simplified shape of the predetermined product, the simplified shape information enabling calculation of manufacturing condition information relating to a condition for manufacturing the predetermined product in a manufacturing section that manufactures the predetermined product (Fig. 1 and 2A; ¶0025[Block 106 comprises transforming the first object model data to determine second object model data representing a modified first three-dimensional object which is distended in the identified object region. The modified first three-dimensional object may be substantially the same as the original first three-dimensional object in other object regions (i.e. it may be substantially the same as the first three-dimensional object outside the identified object region(s)). The transformation may be applied to the data portion(s) representing the identified object region(s) to be concealed (and, in some examples, not to other data portions)] in view of ¶0027[the second object model data may be to be distributed as part as an object generation workflow, for example being supplied to allow ‘batching’ of a number of objects to be generated at once. In batching processes, a number of the same or different objects may be considered for fabricating in a single build operation, and the batching process may comprise arranging the objects.]; Examiner notes that the “second object model” is comparable to the instant “simplified shape information”); and
a simplified shape output unit to output the simplified shape information for calculation of the manufacturing condition information relating to the manufacturing condition of the predetermined product (Fig. 5[a representation of an interface in association with a display device and user input device]; ¶0050[The interface 500 is operable to control the display device 502 to display the object and the modified object, for example simultaneously or consecutively or in some other manner. Such a display may allow the user to verify that the portion of the object to be concealed is sufficiently obscured. The display device 502 may also display build cost information.]).
Although White discloses supporting an order of a product, White does not explicitly disclose order of a product including any one of clothing, footwear, accessories, and a product,
However, Isaacson teaches ordering and generating custom jewelry (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 7-16 [For example, a server for generating custom jewelry through a step-by-step customization process can be configured to send display instructions over a network to display a plurality of available selections for a first customization option at a remote computer system. The server can also access a first product photo based on a user selection at the remote computer system of an available selection for the first customization option.]).
The system of Isaacson is applicable to the system of White as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to product customization and generation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product customization as disclosed by White to include accessories and clothing as taught by Isaacson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of White in order to improve the custom jewelry design process (Col. 3, line 67 to Col. 4, line 1).
Although White discloses generating a simplified shape, White in view of Isaacson does not explicitly teach determining a reduced granularity for shape information, and generating a shape with the reduced granularity by at least one of: (i) increasing a voxel size representing the product shape information, (ii) reducing a number of points in a point cloud representing the product shape information, or (iii) reducing a number of divisions of a bounding box representing the product shape information.
However, Wu teaches increasing voxel size representing product shape information (Fig. 7; ¶0051[Thus, at step 702, a plurality of new voxels is generated by increasing the voxel size. As discussed above, the size of the voxels of the plurality of initial voxels is set to a predetermined voxel size, e.g., 2 mm.times.2 mm.times.2 mm. The union set determination module 204 increases the size of the voxels to a new size. For example, the union set determination module 204 can double the dimensions of a voxel, e.g., the voxels of a new voxel can be set to 4 mm.times.4 mm.times.4 mm.] in view of ¶0028[A bounding box 300 is a 3D space with defined parameters, which contains all the points in the received object 100. It is appreciated that the bounding box can be a cube, a cuboid, a rectangular prism, a hexahedron, a sphere, a pyramid, or any other 3D shape.]; According to ¶0057 of the instant specification the voxel is the “smallest unit for expressing a solid object on a computer”).
The system of Wu is applicable to the system of White in view of Isaacson as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to product customization and generation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product customization as taught by White in view of Isaacson to include increasing voxel size as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of White in view of Isaacson in order to design parts, e.g., computer-aided design (CAD) applications, and for performing analytical applications such as safety testing, vibration analysis, and computational fluid dynamics analysis (¶0003).
Regarding Claim 14, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White discloses wherein the simplified shape is expressed by using at least one of a voxel, the point cloud, and the bounding box (Figs. 2A-2E; ¶0035[In one example, as shown in FIG. 2A, data representing a concavity in the identified object region is transformed to at least partially reduce the depth of the concavity. This may comprise, for example, in effect filling a concavity with material, either by mapping a surface to another surface in which the concavity is shallower, or as in the example of the figure, non-existent, or by ‘adding’ material directly, for example adding voxels into the concavity. FIG. 2A shows a cup 200 having a liquid containing cavity. In generating the modified version of the cup, the portion of cup 200 comprising the cavity is replaced such that an original concave inner surface 202 is replaced with a distended surface 204, spanning the mouth of the concavity. The relationship between the original and the distended surface is shown using arrows.]).
Regarding Claim 15, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 4, White discloses wherein the simplified shape is expressed by using at least one of a voxel, the point cloud, and the bounding box (Figs. 2A-2E and 3; ¶¶0035-0036[In a voxel-based object, there may be a condition that each location corresponds to at most a single voxel.] and ¶0042[For example, each applied distension could be reviewed by a user, who may opt to increase or decrease the amount of additional material to be added, or to change the type of distension applied, to create a modified object. For example, a ‘slider’ graphical interface may be provided. The control to add or remove material may be control at the level of voxels.]).
Regarding Claim 16, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White discloses wherein generating the simplified shape information comprises extracting at least one item of simplified shape information, out of a plurality of items of simplified shape information, based on a product shape indicated by the product shape information to generate the simplified shape information (Fig. 1; ¶0033[For example, in the above described case of a cup 200, and as shown in FIG. 2B, an identified data portion of the handle 206 may be replaced with a cuboid 208 fully enclosing the handle and the void between the handle and the cup body (in some examples, the smallest cuboid which fully encloses the handle). Instead of a single cuboid (or other shapes), a plurality of shapes could be used to fill the area. In another example, as shown in FIG. 2C, the shape of the handle 206 may be obscured by replacing it with at least one shape 210 (in this example, a cylinder) which follow the form thereof (i.e. data indicating the presence of the void may be retained). In some examples the shapes 210 may be user selected or determined automatically. Such shapes could include shapes having quadratic surfaces such as cones, cylinders, ellipsoids, spheroids, spheres, hyperboloids, paraboloids and the like.] in view of ¶0019).
Regarding Claim 17, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 3, White discloses wherein generating the simplified shape information comprises extracting at least one item of simplified shape information, out of a plurality of items of simplified shape information, based on a product shape indicated by the product shape information to generate the simplified shape information (Fig. 1; ¶0033[For example, in the above described case of a cup 200, and as shown in FIG. 2B, an identified data portion of the handle 206 may be replaced with a cuboid 208 fully enclosing the handle and the void between the handle and the cup body (in some examples, the smallest cuboid which fully encloses the handle). Instead of a single cuboid (or other shapes), a plurality of shapes could be used to fill the area. In another example, as shown in FIG. 2C, the shape of the handle 206 may be obscured by replacing it with at least one shape 210 (in this example, a cylinder) which follow the form thereof (i.e. data indicating the presence of the void may be retained). In some examples the shapes 210 may be user selected or determined automatically. Such shapes could include shapes having quadratic surfaces such as cones, cylinders, ellipsoids, spheroids, spheres, hyperboloids, paraboloids and the like.] in view of ¶0019).
Regarding Claim 18, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 4, White discloses wherein generating the simplified shape information comprises extracting at least one item of simplified shape information, out of a plurality of items of simplified shape information, based on a product shape indicated by the product shape information to generate the simplified shape information (Fig. 1; ¶0033[For example, in the above described case of a cup 200, and as shown in FIG. 2B, an identified data portion of the handle 206 may be replaced with a cuboid 208 fully enclosing the handle and the void between the handle and the cup body (in some examples, the smallest cuboid which fully encloses the handle). Instead of a single cuboid (or other shapes), a plurality of shapes could be used to fill the area. In another example, as shown in FIG. 2C, the shape of the handle 206 may be obscured by replacing it with at least one shape 210 (in this example, a cylinder) which follow the form thereof (i.e. data indicating the presence of the void may be retained). In some examples the shapes 210 may be user selected or determined automatically. Such shapes could include shapes having quadratic surfaces such as cones, cylinders, ellipsoids, spheroids, spheres, hyperboloids, paraboloids and the like.] in view of ¶0019).
Claim(s) 9, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu in view of Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0097840 A1 [previously cited]).
Regarding Claim 9, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 3, White discloses wherein the manufacturing condition information includes at least one item of information relating to a price, corresponding to the simplicity-level information, in manufacturing the predetermined product by the manufacturing section (¶0042[The price may increase as the degree of distension increases and in some examples blocks 304 to 308 may be carried out in a number of cycles until the user is satisfied with the balance between the level of concealment provided to the design and the cost of manufacture.]).
Although White discloses information regarding price, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu does not explicitly teach price and information relating to a lead time.
However, Nishimura et al., hereinafter, Nishimura, teaches information relating to a lead time for manufacturing of a product (¶0056[A technique may also be available in which a manufacturing time taken to manufacture an interim product and a waiting time to manufacture the next interim product is calculated for each product in each process from a time when the manufacturing of the product starts and a time when the manufacturing of the product ends, and the resulting time information is displayed.]).
The method of Nishimura is applicable to the method of White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to improving product manufacturing techniques. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing condition information as taught by White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu to include information relating to a lead time as taught by Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu in order to readily grasp the manufacturing time and the waiting time of each process (¶0004).
Regarding Claim 19, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White discloses wherein the manufacturing condition information includes at least any one item of information relating to a price, in manufacturing the predetermined product by the manufacturing section (¶0042[The price may increase as the degree of distension increases and in some examples blocks 304 to 308 may be carried out in a number of cycles until the user is satisfied with the balance between the level of concealment provided to the design and the cost of manufacture.]).
Although White discloses information regarding price, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu does not explicitly teach price and information relating to a lead time.
However, Nishimura teaches information relating to a lead time for manufacturing of a product (¶0056[A technique may also be available in which a manufacturing time taken to manufacture an interim product and a waiting time to manufacture the next interim product is calculated for each product in each process from a time when the manufacturing of the product starts and a time when the manufacturing of the product ends, and the resulting time information is displayed.]).
The method of Nishimura is applicable to the method of White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to improving product manufacturing techniques. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing condition information as taught by White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu to include information relating to a lead time as taught by Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu in order to readily grasp the manufacturing time and the waiting time of each process (¶0004).
Regarding Claim 20, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu teaches the order supporting method according to claim 4, White discloses wherein the manufacturing condition information includes at least one item of information relating to a price, corresponding to the simplicity-level information, in manufacturing the predetermined product by the manufacturing section (¶0042[The price may increase as the degree of distension increases and in some examples blocks 304 to 308 may be carried out in a number of cycles until the user is satisfied with the balance between the level of concealment provided to the design and the cost of manufacture.]).
Although White discloses information regarding price, White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu does not explicitly teach price and information relating to a lead time.
However, Nishimura teaches information relating to a lead time for manufacturing of a product (¶0056[A technique may also be available in which a manufacturing time taken to manufacture an interim product and a waiting time to manufacture the next interim product is calculated for each product in each process from a time when the manufacturing of the product starts and a time when the manufacturing of the product ends, and the resulting time information is displayed.]).
The method of Nishimura is applicable to the method of White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to improving product manufacturing techniques. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing condition information as taught by White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu to include information relating to a lead time as taught by Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of White in view of Isaacson in view of Wu in order to readily grasp the manufacturing time and the waiting time of each process (¶0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the remarks filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the previous Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims.
Accordingly, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of the remarks filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 112(f) Interpretation have been fully considered but are not persuasive. According to the MPEP 2181, determining whether a claim limitation invokes 35 USC § 112(f) is evaluated using a 3-prong analysis. Prong one states, the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function. Prong two states, the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that". Prong three states, the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The limitation uses the nonce terms "product shape acquisition unit", “simplicity-level acquisition unit”, "simplified shape generation unit", and "simplified shape output unit" which are modified by functional language, i.e., "to acquire”, "to determine”, and "to output ", and are not modified by sufficient structure for performing the acquiring, determining, or outputting. Therefore, claims 12 and 13 invoke 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation for claims 12 and 13.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-12 of the remarks filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10-11 of the remarks that the amended claims are not abstract and result in improved processing resources, storage capacity, and technical security. Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the MPEP 2106.04, the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception in Step 2A is now evaluated using a two-prong inquiry. Prong One asks if the claim “recites” an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Under that prong, the mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a method of organizing human activity in a claim means that the claim “recites” a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04 [“The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.”]). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04 instructs examiners to refer to the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mental processes) in order to identify abstract ideas. As noted above and in the previous office action, the claims recite ordering products. This is an abstract idea because it is a concept of business relations which makes it a method of organizing human activity (i.e., one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Furthermore, an order supporting method of supporting an order of a predetermined product including any one of clothing, footwear, accessories, and a product utilized to conform to a part of a body, the method comprising: acquiring, product shape information relating to a product shape of the predetermined product in a format, or another format allowing the predetermined product; acquiring, simplicity-level information set according to a level of security in the product shape information; determining, a reduced granularity for simplified shape information indicating a simplified shape of the predetermined product based on the simplicity-level information; generating, based on the product shape information, the simplified shape information indicating the simplified shape of the predetermined product with the reduced granularity by at least one of: (i) increasing a voxel size representing the product shape information, (ii) reducing a number of points in a point cloud representing the product shape information, or (iii) reducing a number of divisions of a bounding box representing the product shape information, the simplified shape information enabling calculation of manufacturing condition information relating to a manufacturing condition of the predetermined product, in a manufacturing section configured to manufacture the predetermined product; and outputting, the simplified shape information for calculation of the manufacturing condition information relating to the manufacturing condition of the predetermined product, as recited in amended claim 1, are all part of the abstract idea. The mere execution of the abstract idea on generic components which are recited at a high level such as a computer, a processor, a computer aided design software, a computer aided engineering software and 3D printing does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide a technical improvement. See Fig. 9, ¶0044, and ¶0096 of the instant specification where these components are described at a high level and as generic.
Applicant cites Enfish, L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp. for support. Enfish reflected an improvement to computer functionality and its specification described the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Unlike the claims in Enfish, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims do not pertain to an “improvement” to the functioning of a computer or to another technology (see MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a)).
Applicant further argues on pages 10 and 11 of the remarks that the amended claims “improve the security of highly confidential information” and cites to ¶0005 of the instant specification. Examiner notes that processing product shape information with high security in order to support processing performed prior to ordering a product is part of the abstract idea and merely executing the abstract idea on high level and generic components does not overcome the 101 rejections.
Applicant cites TECSec, Inc. v. Adobe, Inc. and Amdocs Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc. on page 11 of the remarks for support. Examiner disagrees that the amended claims are analogous to that of TECSec or Amdocs. TECSec reflected a technical solution in computer networks by addressing a specific technical problem and combined structural and procedural elements (i.e., key manager, label, encryption) in a novel way. Furthermore, the specification of TECSec described in detail how the invention improved computer data networks. Similarly, Amdocs addressed a technological problem in databases and provided an unconventional technological solution. Amdocs required specific computer components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality and the specification described in detail the technical advancement over the prior art. Unlike the claims in TECSec and Amdocs, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims do not amount to an “improvement” to the functioning of a computer or to another technology (see MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a)).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the invention is directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on page 12 of the remarks filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 103 rejections have been fully considered but are mostly moot in view of the new 103 rejection of the amended claims.
With regards to the applicant’s argument regarding Claim 4, Examiner notes that White discloses receiving a user input which indicates a “degree of distension” to be applied to an object such as specifying a minimum thickness of padding to be applied to each point on the surface of the object, see White ¶0039 and Fig. 3. White further discloses that the distension is applied to an object in order to increase design security, see White ¶0042. Therefore, Examiner maintains that White discloses wherein “the level of security is set by the user”, as stated in amended claim 4.
Accordingly, references White, Isaacson, and Nishimura have been maintained and reference Wu has been added in view of the claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHOORA LADONI whose email is Ahoora.Ladoni@uspto.gov and telephone number is (703) 756-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900–1700 ET.
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.
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/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.
/AHOORA LADONI/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights