DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 7/1/26 in which claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 filed 6/22/26 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/1/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsubara et al (JP 2020/200559), herein Matsubara.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsubara teaches a computer-implemented method (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as such, for structure for method, see Fig. 1; [0020] "knit design system 100 shown in the functional block diagram of Fig. 1 includes…editing unit 2…display unit 4"; [0027] "editing unit 2…can be configured by…a computer"; [0050] "program creation unit 29 creates a program for causing the flat knitting machine to perform knitting based on the design data"; [0050] "program is sent to the flat knitting machine"), comprising:
transforming a three-dimensional (3D) model defined in a 3D space into a two-dimensional (2D) knitting map that specifies respective locations of stitches for a knitted article (see Figs. 2, 3 for 2D knitting map; [0028] "first creation unit 21 creates original data based on paper pattern data that indicates the outer shape of the knitted fabric", wherein paper is 3D; [0029] "Fig. 2 is a diagram that visualizes the paper pattern data 5, 50 and the original data 6, 60"; [0023] "as shown in Fig. 3, the design sheet 40 has a configuration in which squares 41, each corresponding to one stitch, are arranged in a grid pattern. The squares are a plurality of knitting units corresponding to the knitting needles of the needle bed of the flat knitting machine, and are assigned one knitting code"),
groups of the stitches forming courses and wales of the knitted article ([0023] "The horizontal direction of the design sheet 40 corresponds to the knitting course…vertical direction of the design sheet 4 corresponds to the wale direction of the knitted fabric"),
the 2D knitting map contain apexes which terminate an end of respective pairs of the courses (see Figs. 2, 3; [0029] "outline lines of the original data 6 (60) are irregular and often do not take knitting efficiency into consideration"),
wherein all of the courses of the 2D knitting map extend along lines that are arranged parallel to one another (see Figs. 2, 3);
for a portion of the 2D knitting map, decreasing or increasing a spatial distance between respective apexes of adjacent course pairs within the portion of the 2D knitting map through a rearrangement of the course pairs within the portion of the 2D knitting map (see Figs. 2, 3; [0029] "outline lines of the original data 6 (60) are irregular and often do not take knitting efficiency into consideration"; [0030] "Fig. 3…design data (corrected data 7) obtained by the user correcting the outline lines of the original data 6...in the corrected data 7, the step shape gradually becomes larger in the wale direction...and no small step is placed after a large step...results in smooth contours"; for pairs-- [0030] "steps are formed in which the number of courses aligned in the wale direction is an even number"; from irregular to gradual indicates decreasing/increasing; no small step placed after indicates rearrangement),
wherein an amount of the spatial distance decreased or increased between the respective apexes of the adjacent course pairs is based on a user-provided input ([0020] "knit design system 100 allows a user to design a knitted fabric…system 100…is configured to be able to obtain design data having outline lines that match the designer's image", where designer's image, allowing user all indicates user-provided input; [0029] "knit design 100 has a function to automatically correct the original data 6 (60) based on a preset algorithm, but the user may also make further fine adjustments to the corrected outline lines");
converting the 2D knitting map to knitting instructions for the computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine (see Fig. 1; for converting-- [0050] "program creation unit 29 creates a program for causing the flat knitting machine to perform knitting based on the design data"; [0020] "system 100 can be used to design knitted fabrics for any flat knitting machine, such as a two-bed flat knitting machine or a four-bed flat knitting machine"; computer controlled--[0050] "program is sent to the flat knitting machine"); and
transmitting said knitting instructions to said computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine so as to produce the knitted article in accordance with the knitting instructions (transmitting-- [0050] "program is sent to the flat knitting machine"; see [0050] to produce).
Regarding Claim 10, Matsubara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the 2D knitting map comprises a checkerboard-like array in which each pixel represents a loop of the knitted article (see Fig. 3; [0023] "as shown in Fig. 3, the design sheet 40 has a configuration in which squares 41, each corresponding to one stitch, are arranged in a grid pattern. The squares are a plurality of knitting units corresponding to the knitting needles of the needle bed of the flat knitting machine, and are assigned one knitting code").
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(s) 2, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al (JP 2020/200559), herein Matsubara, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Morgan et al (US Publication 2019/0368085), herein Morgan.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Matsubara does not explicitly teach prior to the converting of the 2D knitting map to the knitting instructions, presenting the 2D knitting map for review and edit by a user; and
updating the 2D knitting map according to revisions made by the user.
Morgan teaches prior to the converting of the 2D knitting map to the knitting instructions, presenting the 2D knitting map for review and edit by a user (see Fig. 5B, wherein the converting is at 506I after 512; wherein presented for review at 512; [0136] "first garment 508 may be carefully evaluated to determine what garment design changes may be desired in an effort to address some/all of the issues with the first garment 508...the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500 in the graphic design software...and thereby create a revised garment design 510"; [0138] "additionally or alternatively...a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised garment design input data 512"; for context--[0131] "Fig. 5B shows an initial display of body map data on a computer display device"; [0130] "body map data may come from any suitable source such as from an optical scan of a specific wearer's body...from a thermal scan"; for 2D knitting map -- [0132] "based on the body map data 550…garment design input data 502 for a garment design may be generated...this garment design input data 502 may include a data set with instructions for knitting a computer controlled knitting machine to produce the desired garment design 500"; for knitting map with location of stitches -- [0132] "the garment design input data 502 created ...may include data representing different knit structural units and/or different knitting actions at various locations in the garment structure"; see Fig. 7 for example of 502 knitting map; [0135] "because of various factors...sometimes ...first garment 508....does not turn out as expected...may not perform in the manner desired/anticipated...may not fit correctly...any of these types of issues...with the first garment 508 in this process may cause the garment designer to want to alter the garment design"; [0136] "the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500...and thereby create a revised garment 510...the revised garment 510 may include changes...to at least one of: a size of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a position of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a size of the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a position of the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the first knit structural unit with respect to the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the first knit structural unit with respect to another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the second knit structural unit with respect to another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; eliminating at least one of the first knit structural unit or the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; adding one or more additional knit structural units (which may be the same as or different from either or both of the first and/or second knit structural units) in the revised garment design 510; changing a material in one or more portions of the revised garment design 510 (and optionally changing a material of some or all of the first knit structural unit and/or the second knit structural unit); changing a distance between two occurrences of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; changing a number of knit stitch actions between two occurrences of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; changing a distance between the first knit structural unit and another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; and/or changing a number of knit stitch actions between the first knit structural unit and another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510"; for within 2D knitting map -- [0138] "additionally or alternatively, rather than making the changes to the garment design 510 in the graphic design software, a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised design input data 512"); and
updating the 2D knitting map according to revisions made by the user (updating the map with revisions results in a finalized 512).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsubara’s method with the iterations of Morgan in order to allow edits ([0136]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Matsubara teaches the recitations (wherein the rejection of Claim 1 was referring to the second iteration, wherein the recitations herein are referring to the first iteration).
Regarding Claim 3, Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Matsubara does not explicitly teach prior to the converting of the 2D knitting map instructions, defining an updated 3D model based on the 2D knitting map; and
updating the 2D knitting map using the updated 3D model.
Morgan teaches prior to the converting of the 2D knitting map instructions, defining an updated 3D model based on the 2D knitting map (see Morgan, wherein the term “converting” in the claim is referring to converting after 512; see Fig. 5B; [0136] "first garment 508 may be carefully evaluated to determine what garment design changes may be desired in an effort to address some/all of the issues with the first garment 508...the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500 in the graphic design software...and thereby create a revised garment design 510"; [0138] "additionally or alternatively...a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised garment design input data 512"; wherein Claim 1 refers to revising directly to 512; wherein Claim 3 refers to revising on 510 (which is the 3D model in Fig. 5B; for context—see rejection of claim 2); and
updating the 2D knitting map using the updated 3D model (see Morgan Fig. 5B wherein changes to 510 result in 512; [0137] "the revised garment design 510…may be used to generate revised garment design input data shown as element 512 in Fig. 5B").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsubara’s method with the iterations of Morgan in order to allow edits ([0136]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Matsubara teaches the recitations (wherein the rejection of Claim 1 was referring to the second iteration, wherein the recitations herein are referring to the first iteration).
Regarding Claim 5, Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Matsubara does not explicitly teach receiving a texture map representing a design, logo, pattern or other features to be produced as part of the knitted article knitted by the computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine,
wherein the texture map specifies one or more of texture or color on the surface of the 3D model;
applying the texture map to the 3D model; and
immediately after the 2D knitting map has been produced, transferring information represented in the texture map from the 3D model to the 2D knitting map.
However, Matsubara teaches receiving a map representing a design, logo, pattern, or features ([0024] "knitting code may…cause the flat knitting machine to knit stitches").
Morgan teaches receiving a texture map representing a design, logo, pattern or other features to be produced as part of the knitted article knitted by the computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine (wherein previous knit map referred to one type of knit structural unit, such as a knit stitch in Fig. 7; see Fig. 7 and [0148]; wherein the texture map is directed to another type of knit that is specifically for texture, such as design, pattern, or other features--[0144] "using the body scan 550…identify one or more areas of the garment structure where specific knit structural units may need to be provided and/or where one or more changes to existing knit structural units may need to be made, e.g., to achieve a desired benefit (e.g.,...raised texture"); [0148] "these 'knit structural units' may include, for example, knitted-in open holes, areas with higher porosity, areas with moisture wicking materials, areas with texture or other structure that help lift portions of the garment off the wearer's body surface (e.g., to enhance air flow), etc., at locations corresponding to higher amounts of released heat (based on information available in the thermal scan 550)"),
wherein the texture map specifies one or more of texture or color on the surface of the 3D model; ([0144] texture);
applying the texture map to the 3D model (see Fig. 7 wherein the texture map is of the 2D knitting map, which is from the 3D model of Matsubara); and
immediately after the 2D knitting map has been produced, transferring information represented in the texture map from the 3D model to the 2D knitting map (Morgan Fig. 5B wherein info from 500 is in 502, and is immediate inasmuch as there are no other steps in between a 3D model, provided by Matsubara, to the 2D knitting map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsubara’s method with the iterations and/or texture map of Morgan in order to allow edits ([0136]) and/or for aesthetic design choice.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Matsubara teaches the recitations (wherein the rejection of Claim 1 was referring to the second iteration, wherein the recitations herein are referring to the first iteration).
Claim(s) 4, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al (JP 2020/200559), herein Matsubara, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Ngo Ngoc et al (USPN 10617165), herein Ngo.
Regarding Claim 4, Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Matsubara teaches that the 3D model is of paper ([0028] "first creation unit 21 creates original data based on paper pattern data that indicates the outer shape of the knitted fabric").
Matsubara does not explicitly teach that the 3D paper is one of selected from a library, produced from imaging of a physical article, produced by a user algorithmically, or produced by the user manually.
Ngo teaches paper is from 3D imaging (see Fig. 1 for 3D model of paper on avatar; Col. 2 Lines 23-35 "Fig. 1 shows the general pipeline of a 3D virtual garment prototyping method. First of all, a set of 2D patterns P of the virtual garment and an avatar AV are provided. As it has been already mentioned, 2D CAD patterns may come from standard industry pattern-marker software; in some cases, they may be obtained by scanning and digitally processing “physical” patterns made of paper. The 3D avatar is created by an artist, generated from anthropometrical survey analysis or obtained from body measurements (e.g. 3D scanning). Then the patterns are positioned around the avatar and assembled using seam definitions. Finally, physical simulation is performed to drape the assembled garment G").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsubara’s paper to have been from a 3D model produced from scanning as taught by Ngo as a known arrangement for garment design, such as to allow user edits (Col. 6 Lines 35-40).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Matsubara teaches wherein the 3D model represents a physical body ([0028] "first creation unit 21 creates original data based on paper pattern data that indicates the outer shape of the knitted fabric").
Matsubara does not explicitly teach the representation as a collection of points in the 3D space that are connected by geometric primitives.
Ngo teaches wherein the paper-related 3D model represents a physical body as a collection of points in the 3D space that are connected by geometric primitives (for paper-related-- see Fig. 1 for 3D model of paper on avatar; Col. 2 Lines 23-35 "Fig. 1 shows the general pipeline of a 3D virtual garment prototyping method. First of all, a set of 2D patterns P of the virtual garment and an avatar AV are provided. As it has been already mentioned, 2D CAD patterns may come from standard industry pattern-marker software; in some cases, they may be obtained by scanning and digitally processing “physical” patterns made of paper. The 3D avatar is created by an artist, generated from anthropometrical survey analysis or obtained from body measurements (e.g. 3D scanning). Then the patterns are positioned around the avatar and assembled using seam definitions. Finally, physical simulation is performed to drape the assembled garment G"; for geometric primitives formed by candidate edges that are a collection of points—see Fig. 3D; Col. 6 Lines 3-5 "on Fig. 3D…reference E0 designates the edge under consideration, and references E1-E7 the corresponding candidate edges"; wherein points/candidate edges allow for edit-- Col. 5 Lines 7-32 "2D patterns P are…placed around a 3D avatar AV…by drag-and-drop"; Col. 5 Lines 39-45 "identification of the other seams... is ...carried out...one or more 'candidate' edges are identified"; Col. 6 Lines 35-40 "user can edit manually the automatically identified seams").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsubara's paper to have been from a 3D model produced from scanning as taught by Ngo as a known arrangement for garment design, to be able to further allow user to edit (Col. 6 Lines 35-40).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Matsubara does not explicitly teach wherein the 3D model is formed by scanning a real-world object.
However, Matsubara teaches a paper-related 3D model ([0028] "first creation unit 21 creates original data based on paper pattern data that indicates the outer shape of the knitted fabric").
Ngo teaches wherein the paper-related 3D model is formed by scanning a real-world object (see Fig. 1 for 3D model of paper on avatar; Col. 2 Lines 23-35 "Fig. 1 shows the general pipeline of a 3D virtual garment prototyping method. First of all, a set of 2D patterns P of the virtual garment and an avatar AV are provided. As it has been already mentioned, 2D CAD patterns may come from standard industry pattern-marker software; in some cases, they may be obtained by scanning and digitally processing “physical” patterns made of paper. The 3D avatar is created by an artist, generated from anthropometrical survey analysis or obtained from body measurements (e.g. 3D scanning). Then the patterns are positioned around the avatar and assembled using seam definitions. Finally, physical simulation is performed to drape the assembled garment G"; for purpose-- Col. 5 Lines 7-32 "2D patterns P are…placed around a 3D avatar AV…by drag-and-drop"; Col. 5 Lines 39-45 "identification of the other seams... is ...carried out...one or more 'candidate' edges are identified"; Col. 6 Lines 35-40 "user can edit manually the automatically identified seams").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsubara's paper to have been from a 3D model produced from scanning as taught by Ngo as a known arrangement for garment design in order to allow for user edits (Col. 6 Lines 35-40).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 8.
Ngo further teaches wherein the 3D model formed by scanning the real-world object is augmented through user manipulation of the 3D model in order to remove artifacts of the scanning and/or to provide customizations in one or more of shape and appearance (for customization in shape or appearance -- Col. 5 Lines 7-32 "2D patterns P are…placed around a 3D avatar AV…by drag-and-drop"; Col. 5 Lines 39-45 "identification of the other seams... is ...carried out...one or more 'candidate' edges are identified"; Col. 6 Lines 35-40 "user can edit manually the automatically identified seams”).
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 11-13, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al (JP 2020/200559), herein Matsubara, in view of Morgan et al (US Publication 2019/0368085), herein Morgan.
Regarding Claim 11, Matsubara teaches a computer system (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Fig. 1; [0020] "knit design system 100 shown in the functional block diagram of Fig. 1 includes…editing unit 2…display unit 4"; [0027] "editing unit 2…can be configured by…a computer"; [0050] "program creation unit 29 creates a program for causing the flat knitting machine to perform knitting based on the design data"; [0050] "program is sent to the flat knitting machine") comprising
instructions (see Fig. 1; [0020], [0027]) computer design indicates instructions) to
transform a three-dimensional (3D) model defined in a 3D space into a two-dimensional (2D) knitting map that specifies respective locations of stitches for a knitted article (see Figs. 2, 3 for 2D knitting map; [0028] "first creation unit 21 creates original data based on paper pattern data that indicates the outer shape of the knitted fabric", wherein paper is 3D; [0029] "Fig. 2 is a diagram that visualizes the paper pattern data 5, 50 and the original data 6, 60"; [0023] "as shown in Fig. 3, the design sheet 40 has a configuration in which squares 41, each corresponding to one stitch, are arranged in a grid pattern. The squares are a plurality of knitting units corresponding to the knitting needles of the needle bed of the flat knitting machine, and are assigned one knitting code"),
groups of the stitches forming courses and wales of the knitted article ([0023] "The horizontal direction of the design sheet 40 corresponds to the knitting course…vertical direction of the design sheet 4 corresponds to the wale direction of the knitted fabric"),
the 2D knitting map contain apexes which terminate an end of respective pairs of the courses (see Figs. 2, 3; [0029] "outline lines of the original data 6 (60) are irregular and often do not take knitting efficiency into consideration"),
wherein all of the courses of the 2D knitting map extend along lines that are arranged parallel to one another (see Figs. 2, 3);
for a portion of the 2D knitting map, decreasing or increasing a spatial distance between respective apexes of adjacent course pairs within the portion of the 2D knitting map through a rearrangement of the course pairs within the portion of the 2D knitting map (see Figs. 2, 3; [0029] "outline lines of the original data 6 (60) are irregular and often do not take knitting efficiency into consideration"; [0030] "Fig. 3…design data (corrected data 7) obtained by the user correcting the outline lines of the original data 6...in the corrected data 7, the step shape gradually becomes larger in the wale direction...and no small step is placed after a large step...results in smooth contours"; for pairs-- [0030] "steps are formed in which the number of courses aligned in the wale direction is an even number"; from irregular to gradual indicates decreasing/increasing; no small step placed after indicates rearrangement),
wherein an amount of the spatial distance decreased or increased between the respective apexes of the adjacent course pairs is based on a user-provided input ([0020] "knit design system 100 allows a user to design a knitted fabric…system 100…is configured to be able to obtain design data having outline lines that match the designer's image", where designer's image, allowing user all indicates user-provided input; [0029] "knit design 100 has a function to automatically correct the original data 6 (60) based on a preset algorithm, but the user may also make further fine adjustments to the corrected outline lines");
convert the 2D knitting map to knitting instructions for the computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine (see Fig. 1; for converting-- [0050] "program creation unit 29 creates a program for causing the flat knitting machine to perform knitting based on the design data"; [0020] "system 100 can be used to design knitted fabrics for any flat knitting machine, such as a two-bed flat knitting machine or a four-bed flat knitting machine"; computer controlled--[0050] "program is sent to the flat knitting machine"); and
transmit said knitting instructions to said computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine so as to produce the knitted article in accordance with the knitting instructions (transmitting-- [0050] "program is sent to the flat knitting machine"; see [0050] to produce).
Matsubara does not explicitly teach a non-transitory machine-readable medium for the computer system comprising a processor.
Morgan teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium for the computer system comprising a processor ([0059] "computing devices that may be used in systems and methods in accordance with examples of the present disclosure may include one or more input devices and a data processing system (e.g. including one or more microprocessors)"; [0060] "a computing device, such as design computer 102 may be programmed with software modules that perform various functions when executed by at least one processor. Software includes computer-executable instructions that may be stored on at least one tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium"; [0003] "to design and produce...garments"),
the non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsubara’s computer system with the processor of a non-transitory machine-readable medium as taught by Morgan as a known arrangement for computer design systems for garments ([0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 12 is similar to the body of Claim 2. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 2 for the rejection of the body of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 13 is similar to the body of Claim 3. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 3 for the rejection of the body of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 15 is similar to the body of Claim 5. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 5 for the rejection of the body of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 20 is the same as the body of Claim 10. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 10 for the rejection of the body of Claim 20.
Claim(s) 14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al (JP 2020/200559), herein Matsubara, in view of Morgan et al (US Publication 2019/0368085), herein Morgan, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Ngo Ngoc et al (USPN 10617165), herein Ngo.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 14 is the same as the body of Claim 4. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 4 for the rejection of the body of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 17 is the same as the body of Claim 7. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 7 for the rejection of the body of Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 18 is the same as the body of Claim 8. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 8 for the rejection of the body of Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Matsubara teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 18.
The body of Claim 19 is the same as the body of Claim 9. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 9 for the rejection of the body of Claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Matsuura (USPN 4807143), Gardner et al (USPN 6907310) directed to paper-related 3D model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights