DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 submitted on 06/12/2024 are pending and have been examined.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2024 and 10/07/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites, “a computer to realize…” on page 3 of the claims submitted on 06/12/2024 and should be corrected to read “a computer to realize;” For purposes of compact prosecution and maintaining clarity on the record, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a computer to realize; “
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “simplified shape generation unit configured to generate…”, and a “simplified shape output unit configured to output…” in claim 12. The limitations use the nonce terms “product shape acquisition unit”, “simplified shape generation unit”, and “simplified shape output unit” which are modified by functional language, i.e., “to acquire…,” “to generate…,” and “to output…” and are not modified by sufficient structure for performing the acquiring, generating, and outputting. The corresponding structures are found in Fig. 9 and ¶0096 of the instant specification. Dependent claims 2-11 and 14-20 inherit the interpretation of claim 1.
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;
generating, based on the product shape information, simplified shape information indicating a 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; and
outputting the simplified shape information.
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 product shape information relating to a product shape of the predetermined product;
generating, based on the product shape information, simplified shape information indicating a 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; and
outputting the simplified shape information.
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 simplified shape generation unit, and a simplified shape output unit. Claim 13 further includes additional elements such as a non-transitory recording medium for recording an order supporting program… and a product utilized to conform to a part of a body, the program causing: a computer.
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 of computers (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.
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) in view of Isaacson et al. (US 11,836,774 B2).
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 product shape information relating to a product shape of the predetermined product (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. 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.]; Examiner notes that the “first object model” is comparable to the instant “product shape information”);
generating, based on the product shape information, simplified shape information indicating a 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 the simplified shape information (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).
Regarding Claim 2, White in view of Isaacson 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White discloses further comprising acquiring simplicity-level information indicating a level of simplicity of the simplified shape information, the simplicity-level information 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 being 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 being 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 3, White further discloses wherein the level of simplicity is set according to a level of security in the product shape information, the level of security 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White further discloses wherein the simplified shape is expressed by using at least one of a voxel, a point cloud, and a 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 3, White further discloses wherein the simplified shape is expressed by using at least one of a voxel, a point cloud, and a bounding box (Figs. 2A-2E; ¶0035), and
a granularity of at least one of the voxel, the point cloud, and the bounding box is determined according to the simplicity-level information (Fig. 3; ¶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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White further 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White further 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 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 1, White further 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 (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. 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.]; Examiner notes that the “first object model” is comparable to the instant “product shape information”);
a simplified shape generation unit configured to generate, based on the product shape information, simplified shape information indicating a 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 (Figs. 1 and 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).
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 (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. 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.]; Examiner notes that the “first object model” is comparable to the instant “product shape information”);
a simplified shape generation unit to generate, based on the product shape information, simplified shape information indicating a 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 (Figs. 1 and 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).
Regarding Claim 14, White in view of Isaacson teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White further discloses wherein the simplified shape is expressed by using at least one of a voxel, a point cloud, and a 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 4, wherein the simplified shape is expressed by using at least one of a voxel, a point cloud (Figs. 2A-2E; ¶0035), and
a bounding box, and a granularity of at least one of the voxel, the point cloud, and the bounding box is determined according to the simplicity-level information (Fig. 3; ¶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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White further 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 3, White further 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 teaches the order supporting method according to claim 4, White further 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 Nishimura et al. (US 2015/0097840 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, White in view of Isaacson teaches the order supporting method according to claim 3, White further 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 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 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 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 order to readily grasp the manufacturing time and the waiting time of each process (¶0004).
Regarding Claim 19, White in view of Isaacson teaches the order supporting method according to claim 2, White further 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 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 system of Nishimura is applicable to the system of White in view of Isaacson 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 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 system of White in view of Isaacson in order to readily grasp the manufacturing time and the waiting time of each process (¶0004).
Regarding Claim 20, White in view of Isaacson teaches the order supporting method according to claim 4, White further 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 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 system of Nishimura is applicable to the system of White in view of Isaacson 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 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 system of White in view of Isaacson in order to readily grasp the manufacturing time and the waiting time of each process (¶0004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hakim et al. (US 2023/0274330 A1) discloses receiving a design request for a design, and iteratively generating a design data based, at least in part, on the design request.
“Point-Based Modeling of Human Clothing” discloses a deep model that can predict point clouds of various outfits, for various human poses, and for various human body shapes.
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
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/9/2026