DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
In claim 5, the phrase “is identical” should be changed to “[[is]] are identical”, to correct the grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over MUROSAKI (WO 2024/042692 A1, hereinafter as “MUROSAKI”).
Regarding claim 1, MUROSAKI teaches:
A system, comprising:
a scanner (scanner 410 in FIG. 4 and [0044]) that is configured to scan a first component (“car component” in [0010]) and to produce a three dimensional data set of the first component ([0046]: “… receives the scan data from the 3D scanner (410)”);
a computer (combination of “3D modeler 430” and “processing control unit 250 in the computer terminal 200” in FIG. 5 and [0044, 0046]) that is in communication with the scanner, said computer including functionality for receiving the three dimensional data set (FIG. 5 and [0046]: the scan data is received and stored in database 253) and for modifying the received three dimensional data set (FIG. 5 and [0044, 0046]: 3D modeler modifies the scanned data and stores the modified data in database 255);
a database (“modified database 255” in [0046]) that is connected to the computer, said database functioning to receive the modified three dimensional data set from the computer ([0046]: database 255 stores the modified 3D data); and
a three dimensional printer (“3D printer 440” in FIG. 4 and [0044]) that is configured to print a replica component using the modified three dimensional data set ([0009, 0044, 0046]: a restoration/replica car component is printed by the 3D printer using the modified 3D data).
MUROSAKI teaches specifically (underlines are added by Examiner for emphasis):
PNG
media_image1.png
340
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
532
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0009] Since a classical car is an automobile in which 40 years or more has elapsed since manufacturing, it is very often impossible to obtain necessary components. For this reason, it is very often impossible to obtain necessary components in the maintenance, repair, restoration, and performance improvement of the classic car.
[0010] The present inventor has developed a component manufacturing system capable of manufacturing a classic car component that can be satisfied in terms of price and quality by
improving work efficiency by applying a 3D printer-related technology such as a 3D scanner and a 3D printer to the manufacture of a classic car component (see Patent Document 1).
[0044] The second network (300) includes a 3D scanner (410), a 3D printer (440), and the computer terminal (200) connected to the 3D scanner and the 3D printer, and as shown in FIG. 4, It is possible to include a 3D-CAD (420) as a data correction means for correcting the scan data from the 3D scanner (410) to prepare correction data, a 3D modeler (430) as a data modification means for modifying the scan data or the correction data from the 3D scanner (410) to prepare modification data, and a 3D printer (440) as a shaping means for shaping a shaped article of the component on the basis of the scan data, the correction data, or the modification data.
[0046] Further, in the production system, as shown in FIG. 5, a three-dimensional data processing control unit (250) in the computer terminal (200) includes the scan data database (253), the correction data database (254), and the modification data database (255), the communication unit (251) in the computer terminal (200) receives the scan data from the 3D scanner (410) and stores the scan data in the scan data database (253), The manufacturing system may be a manufacturing system in which the scan data from the scan data database (253) is converted into the correction data by the 3D-CAD (420), the correction data is stored in the correction data database (254), the computer terminal (200) converts the correction data from the correction data database (254) into the modification data by a 3D modeler (430), stores the modification data in the modification data database (255), and the computer terminal (200) transmits the modification data from the modification data database (255) to the 3D printer (440).
Regarding claim 2, MUROSAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
MUROSAKI further teaches:
the scanner includes a three dimensional scanner (“3D scanner 410” in [0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUROSAKI in view of Cudak (US 20170197369 A1, hereinafter as “Cudak”).
Regarding claim 3, MUROSAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but does not teach the modified three dimensional data set includes a functional capacity blocker.
However, Cudak teaches in an analogous art:
the modified three dimensional data set includes a functional capacity blocker ([0017]: “the printed object can be statically set (nonfunctional), e.g., the object can be a physical design or a physical model. In some cases, the object can be statically set by reducing the functionality of a particular part shown in an original product schematic as functional to being nonfunctional. This means that when a particular functionality of the object is not needed by a consumer, the particular function can be statically set, e.g., going from a design for movement of a part in three dimensions to a design for no movement”. This teaches modified 3D data set includes a function capacity blocker to block/reduce some functionality of an object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUROSAKI based on the teaching of Cudak, to make the system wherein the modified three dimensional data set includes a functional capacity blocker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help produce an object with reduced functionality when “particular functionality of the object is not needed by a consumer”, as Cudak teaches in [0017].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUROSAKI in view of FARRUGIA (WO 2024/153702 A1, hereinafter as “FARRUGIA”).
Regarding claim 4, MUROSAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but does not teach the three dimensional data set includes at least one mounting element found on the first component.
However, FARRUGIA teaches in an analogous art:
the three dimensional component includes at least one mounting element found on the component (FIG. 7 and [Page 21]: “Prior to manufacturing the splint, the method may comprise 3D scanning a pre-existing splint belonging to the user 4 to create a splint model. This step may be considered as forming part of step 402 - creating a profile for the user 4. The model may then be modified to enable mounting of the hub 306 to the splint, as shown in Figure 7 for example. Manufacturing the splint 350 would then comprise 3D printing the splint 350 according to the modified model”. This teaches a 3D printed splint with a mounting element).
Since MUROSAKI teaches to obtain 3D dataset using a 3D scanner, scanning the 3D splint, with mounting element in FARRUGIA by using the 3D scanner taught by MUROSAKI, will generate a 3D dataset comprising at least one mounting element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUROSAKI based on the teaching of FARRUGIA, to make the system wherein the three dimensional data set includes at least one mounting element found on the first component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help design the component “according to that pre-existing” one to avoid “sacrifice the benefits that the pre-existing” component can provide, as FARRUGIA teaches on [Page 18].
Regarding claim 5, MUROSAKI-FARRUGIA teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends.
MUROSAKI further teaches:
the replica component includes a shape and a size that are identical to the first component ([0026]: “it is very often impossible to obtain necessary components in the maintenance, repair, restoration, and performance improvement of the classic car. Therefore, the manufacturing of parts by the 3D printer can be an epoch-making method in the manufacture of classic car parts”. This teaches the 3D printed replica component is for car repair/restoration, i.e., it includes a shape and a size that are identical to the first component scanned).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUROSAKI in view of Alhnan (US 20240148657 A1, hereinafter as “Alhnan”).
Regarding claim 7, MUROSAKI teaches:
A method, comprising:
acquiring a three dimensional data set of a first component ([0046]: “… receives the scan data from the 3D scanner (410)”; “car component” in [0010]);
storing the three dimensional data set on a first database ([0046]: “… in the computer terminal (200) receives the scan data from the 3D scanner (410) and stores the scan data in the scan data database (253)”);
modifying the three dimensional data set ([0046]: “the computer terminal (200) converts the correction data from the correction data database (254) into the modification data by a 3D modeler (430), stores the modification data in the modification data database (255)”;
storing the modified three dimensional data set on a database ([0046]: “stores the modification data in the modification data database (255)”); and
creating a replica component based on the modified three dimensional data set ([0009, 0044, 0046]: a restoration/replica car component is printed by the 3D printer using the modified 3D data).
MUROSAKI teaches all the limitations except the modified 3D data set is stored on a central database.
However, Alhnan teaches in an analogous art:
storing production data set on a central database ([0289]: “The system suitably comprises a central production database, which is suitably configured to log (or collect and/or store) production data …”. This teaches to store production data set on a central production database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUROSAKI based on the teaching of Alhnan, to make the method to further comprise storing the modified three dimensional data set on a central database. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since a central database can help “log (or collect and/or store) the collected production data”, as Alhnan suggests in [0289].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUROSAKI in view of FARRUGIA, and in further view of Cudak.
Regarding claim 6, MUROSAKI-FARRUGIA teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but do not teach the replica component includes a functional capacity blocker at a location of each of the at least one mounting element.
However, Cudak teaches in an analogous art:
the modified three dimensional data set includes a functional capacity blocker ([0017]: “the printed object can be statically set (nonfunctional), e.g., the object can be a physical design or a physical model. In some cases, the object can be statically set by reducing the functionality of a particular part shown in an original product schematic as functional to being nonfunctional. This means that when a particular functionality of the object is not needed by a consumer, the particular function can be statically set, e.g., going from a design for movement of a part in three dimensions to a design for no movement”. This teaches modified 3D data set includes a function capacity blocker to block/reduce some functionality of an object).
Since FARRUGIA teaches to add mounting element in a replica component, Cudak’s teaching of functional capacity blocker can also be incorporated into MUROSAKI-FARRUGIA to block the function of the mounting element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUROSAKI-FARRUGIA based on the teaching of Cudak, to make the system wherein the replica component includes a functional capacity blocker at a location of each of the at least one mounting element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help produce an object with reduced functionality when “particular functionality of the object is not needed by a consumer”, as Cudak teaches in [0017].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUROSAKI in view of Alhnan and FARRUGIA, and in further view of Cudak.
Regarding claim 8, MUROSAKI-Alhnan teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends, but do not teach identifying a mounting element of the first component on the three dimensional data set; and replacing the mounting element with a functional capacity blocker.
However, FARRUGIA teaches in an analogous art:
a mounting element of component (FIG. 7 and [Page 21]: “Prior to manufacturing the splint, the method may comprise 3D scanning a pre-existing splint belonging to the user 4 to create a splint model. This step may be considered as forming part of step 402 - creating a profile for the user 4. The model may then be modified to enable mounting of the hub 306 to the splint, as shown in Figure 7 for example. Manufacturing the splint 350 would then comprise 3D printing the splint 350 according to the modified model”. This teaches a 3D printed splint with a mounting element).
Since MUROSAKI teaches to obtain 3D dataset using a 3D scanner, scanning the 3D splint, with mounting element in FARRUGIA by using the 3D scanner taught by MUROSAKI, will generate a 3D dataset comprising at least one mounting element identified. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUROSAKI-Alhnan based on the teaching of FARRUGIA, to make the method wherein the modifying the three dimensional data set includes the steps of identifying a mounting element of the first component on the three dimensional data set. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help design the component “according to that pre-existing” one to avoid “sacrifice the benefits that the pre-existing” component can provide, as FARRUGIA teaches on [Page 18].
MUROSAKI-Alhnan-FARRUGIA teaches all the limitations except replacing the mounting element with a functional capacity blocker.
However, Cudak teaches in an analogous art:
replacing a functionality block with a functional capacity blocker ([0017]: “the printed object can be statically set (nonfunctional), e.g., the object can be a physical design or a physical model. In some cases, the object can be statically set by reducing the functionality of a particular part shown in an original product schematic as functional to being nonfunctional. This means that when a particular functionality of the object is not needed by a consumer, the particular function can be statically set, e.g., going from a design for movement of a part in three dimensions to a design for no movement”. This teaches modified 3D data set includes a function capacity blocker to block/reduce/replace some functionality block of an object).
Since FARRUGIA teaches to add mounting element in a replica component, Cudak’s teaching of functional capacity blocker can also be incorporated into MUROSAKI-Alhnan-FARRUGIA to block/replace the function of the mounting element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MUROSAKI-Alhnan-FARRUGIA based on the teaching of Cudak, to make the method wherein the modifying the three dimensional data set includes the steps of replacing the mounting element with a functional capacity blocker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help produce an object with reduced functionality when “particular functionality of the object is not needed by a consumer”, as Cudak teaches in [0017].
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klappert (US 20150165685 A1): teaches, in [0007], a 3D printing system to print 3D object with modified or deleted feature
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights