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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5/13/26 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application, with Claims 12-17 remaining withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/13/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “in the case where the first style is acquired as the selected style, control the display…without display producing types other than the first producing candidate” in Claim 4 Lines 3-6 is considered new matter, especially pending clarification of 112(b) rejection. The term seems to equate producing types to the first producing candidate.
The term “in the case where the second style is acquired as the selected style, control the display…without displaying producing types other than the second producing candidate” in Claim 4 Lines 8-10 is considered new matter, especially pending clarification of 112(b) rejection. The term seems to equate producing types to the second producing candidate.
The term “in the case where the first style is acquired as the selected style, control the display…without display producing types other than the first producing candidate… in the case where the second style is acquired as the selected style, control the display…without displaying producing types other than the second producing candidate” in Claim 4 Lines 3-6, 8-10 is considered new matter, especially pending clarification of 112(b) rejection. Even if the terms were “producing types other than those of the first producing candidate….producing types other than those of the second producing candidate”, based on the eventual dependency of Claim 4 on Claim 1 which establishes that the first/second style have at least a first producing type in common, it is considered new matter to indicate that there are no producing types in common in Claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 4, 7-11 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “in the case where the first style is acquired as the selected style, control the display…without display producing types other than the first producing candidate” in Claim 4 Lines 3-6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term seems to equate producing types to the first producing candidate. It is unclear if the term should read “other than those of the first producing candidate.”
The term “in the case where the second style is acquired as the selected style, control the display…without displaying producing types other than the second producing candidate” in Claim 4 Lines 8-10 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term seems to equate producing types to the second producing candidate. It is unclear if the term should read “other than those of the second producing candidate.”
The term “in the case where the first style is acquired as the selected style, control the display…without display producing types other than the first producing candidate… in the case where the second style is acquired as the selected style, control the display…without displaying producing types other than the second producing candidate” in Claim 4 Lines 3-6, 8-10 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if the terms were interpreted “producing types other than those of the first producing candidate….producing types other than those of the second producing candidate”, based on the eventual dependency of Claim 4 on Claim 1 which establishes that the first/second style have at least a first producing type in common, it is unclear how Claim 4 can establish that there are no producing types in common in Claim 4 with the term “other than.” For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as though the first/second producing candidates are not mutually exclusive but are not the same.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the producing data" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the producing data” in Claim 7 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this relates to “first producing data” or “second producing data” in Claim 1. It is unclear if Claim 1 failed to establish the antecedent basis relative to the terms.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the producing data" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the producing data” in Claim 9 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this relates to “first producing data” or “second producing data” in Claim 1. It is unclear if Claim 1 failed to establish the antecedent basis relative to the terms.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the producing data" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the producing data” in Claim 10 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this relates to “first producing data” or “second producing data” in Claim 1. It is unclear if Claim 1 failed to establish the antecedent basis relative to the terms.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the producing data" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the producing data” in Claim 11 Line 8 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this relates to “first producing data” or “second producing data” in Claim 1. It is unclear if Claim 1 failed to establish the antecedent basis relative to the terms.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the producing data" in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the producing data” in Claim 11 Line 9 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this relates to “first producing data” or “second producing data” in Claim 1. It is unclear if Claim 1 failed to establish the antecedent basis relative to the terms.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the producing data" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the producing data” in Claim 11 Line 10 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this relates to “first producing data” or “second producing data” in Claim 1. It is unclear if Claim 1 failed to establish the antecedent basis relative to the terms.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the producing data" in Line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the producing data” in Claim 11 Line 13 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this relates to “first producing data” or “second producing data” in Claim 1. It is unclear if Claim 1 failed to establish the antecedent basis relative to the terms. It is unclear if the term should read “the first producing data” based on “in the case where the first style is acquired”.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishizaki et al (USPN 11987918), herein Nishizaki.
Regarding Claim 1, Nishizaki teaches a system (see Figs. 1, 5A, 5B; Col. 10 Lines 26-28 "pieces 56A and 56B cut by the cutting device 4 are sewn onto the object 30 to be sewn by the sewing machine 3") comprising:
a controller (see Figs. 1, 10; for sewing main process--Col. 6 Lines 18-20 “sewing main process starts in response to the CPU 31…when the user performs, via the input portion 35, an operation to specify an embroidery pattern and send the embroidery data to the cutting device 4”; for cutting main process--Col. 8 Line 6 "cutting main process starts in response to the CPU 41”; Col. 8 Lines 13-15 “CPU 41 acquires the type of data selected by the operation performed via the input portion 45 (the embroidery data or the cutting data) (step S31)") configured to:
acquire a target image (see Fig. 11 for final product, indicating there was an initial target image; for sewing main process--Col. 6 Lines 18-20 embroidery pattern; for cutting main process-- Col. 8 Lines 4-10 “cutting main process executed by the CPU 41…when an operation has been performed by the user, via the input portion 45, the select the embroidery data or the cutting data”, wherein Figs. 12A, 13A show the target images for sewing main process and cutting main process, respectively),
acquire a selected style from a plurality of types of image styles including a first style and a second style (see Figs. 11-13B; Col. 8 Lines 31- 42 "When the type of data selected by the user is the embroidery data (yes at step S37)…hereinafter, a case is assumed in which the embroidery data D2 illustrated in Fig. 6 is received. The CPU 41 displays a preview image 8A illustrated in Fig. 12A"; Col. 9 Lines 34-46 "on the other hand, when the type of data selected by the user is the cutting data (no at step 37)...hereinafter...will assume a case in which the cutting data for cutting the object 40...has been received"; first style = embroidery; second style = cutting, wherein user selection indicates acquiring),
in a case where the first style is acquired as the selected style,
generate a first converted image by converting the target image into the first style (Fig. 11 resulting product),
select one producing type from a first producing candidate associated with the first style (types = Col. 9 Lines 12-14 "Editing methods, such as smoothing of the cutting line, seam allowance setting, line addition, dot conversion, and the like, are allocated to the editable items 83A to 83C"; wherein the first producing candidate are options 83A to 83B in Fig. 13B),
the first producing candidate including a first producing type and not including a second producing type (Col. 9 Lines 12-14; second producing type is smoothing, first producing type is one of the others, wherein option 83C is not shown in Fig. 13B, unlike Fig. 12B),
generate, from the first converted image, a first producing data for producing a sheet-like medium by the selected one producing type (wherein Fig. 13B results in a final product Fig. 11 of a sheet-like medium that would be from a first producing data); and
output the first producing data (first producing data output by existence of Fig. 11 final product); and
in a case where the second style is acquired as the selected style,
generate a second converted image by converting the target image into the second style (Fig. 11 resulting product),
select one producing type from a second producing candidate associated with the second style (types = Col. 9 Lines 12-14 "Editing methods, such as smoothing of the cutting line, seam allowance setting, line addition, dot conversion, and the like, are allocated to the editable items 83A to 83C"; wherein the second producing candidate are options 83A to 83C in Fig. 12B),
the second producing candidate including both the first producing type and the second producing type (Col. 9 Lines 12-14; second producing type is smoothing, first producing type is one of the others, wherein option 83C is shown in Fig. 12B, unlike in Fig. 13B),
generate, from the second converted image, a second producing data for producing a sheet-like medium by the selected one producing type (wherein Fig. 12B results in a final product Fig. 11 of a sheet-like medium that would be from a second producing data); and
output the second producing data (second producing data output by existence of Fig. 11 final product).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishizaki further teaches the system according to claim 1,
wherein the first producing type is one of:
cutting performed by a cutting machine by using cutting data for cutting the medium as the producing data (see Fig. 11 where the first producing type belongs to/occurs under the selection of cutting; Col. 3 Lines 6-7 "system 1 has a server device 2, a sewing machine 3, and a cutting device 4"; Col. 3 Lines 47-48 "cutting device 4 cuts an object 40 to be cut, using a cutting blade of a cartridge 4A");
printing performed by a printer by using printing data for printing on the medium as the producing data (not required); and
sewing performed by a sewing machine by using sewing data for forming stitches on the medium as the producing data (see Fig. 11 where the first producing type belongs to/occurs under the selection of sewing/embroidering; Col. 3 Lines 6-7 "system 1 has a server device 2, a sewing machine 3, and a cutting device 4"; Col. 3 Lines 23-24 "sewing machine 3 has a function of sewing an embroidery pattern onto an object 30 to be sewn"); and
wherein the second producing type is another one of the cutting, the printing, and the sewing (see above, wherein these producing types belong to one of the cutting, printing, sewing).
Regarding Claim 3, Nishizaki further teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a display (see Figs. 12B, 13B),
wherein the controller is configured to:
in the case where the first style is acquired as the selected style,
control the display to display the first producing candidate in a selectable manner (see Fig. 13B; candidate being the combination of A, B); and
in the case where the second style is acquired as the selected style,
control the display to display the second producing candidate in a selectable manner (see Fig. 12B, candidate being the combination of A, B, C).
Regarding Claim 4, Nishizaki further teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
in the case where the first style is acquired as the selected style, control the display to display first producing candidate in a selectable manner, without displaying producing types other than the first producing candidate in the selectable manner (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 13B, where only the candidate A,B is displayed without displaying candidate A,B,C of Fig. 12B); and
in the case where the second style is acquired as the selected style, control the display to display second producing candidate in a selectable manner, without displaying producing types other than the second producing candidate in the selectable manner (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 12B, where only the candidate A,B,C is displayed without displaying candidate A,B of Fig. 13B).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishizaki further teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
in the case where the first style is acquired as the selected style, control the display to display a first image indicating that first producing type data can be output and that second producing type data cannot be output, the first producing type data being the producing data of the first producing type, the second producing type data being the producing data of the second producing type (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Fig. 13B is the first style; first producing type data = data of A/B; second producing type data cannot be output as C option, smoothing, from Col. 9 Lines 12-14; Col. 10 Lines 2-12),
in the case where the second style is acquired as the selected style, control the display to display a second image indicating that the first producing type data and the second producing type data can be output (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Fig. 13A is the second style; can be output as A/B and C).
Regarding Claim 6, Nishizaki teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein the first image includes a first object and does not include a second object (first object = buttons A/B; second object = button C; see Fig. 13B for only A/B),
the first object being an object for inputting a first instruction to output the first producing type data (types = Col. 9 Lines 12-14 "Editing methods, such as smoothing of the cutting line, seam allowance setting, line addition, dot conversion, and the like, are allocated to the editable items 83A to 83C"; instruction = editing method; first instruction = anything but smoothing; and therefore the data associated with),
the second object being an object for inputting a second instruction to output the second producing type data (second instruction = smoothing);
wherein the second image includes the first object and the second object (see Fig. 12B for both); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
in response to receiving selection of the first object displayed on the display to input the first instruction, output the first producing type data (see Fig. 13A); and
in response to receiving selection of the second object displayed on the display to input the second instruction, output the second producing type data (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding Claim 7, Nishizaki teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
output the producing data based on the converted image and a plurality of types of parameters (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 9 Lines 12-14 "Editing methods, such as smoothing of the cutting line, seam allowance setting, line addition, dot conversion, and the like, are allocated to the editable items 83A to 83C"; parameters = other than smoothing and another; wherein producing data comprises the resulting products),
initial values of the plurality of types of parameters being set in accordance with the selected style (initial values shown based on selected style as there wouldn't be the initial values of 83C since the option is not shown with the second selected style in Fig. 13B).
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizaki et al (USPN 11987918), herein Nishizaki, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Minamikawa et al (USPN 11885055), herein Minamikawa.
Regarding Claim 8, Nishizaki teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 7.
Nishizaki does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire a size corresponding to a producing region of the medium;
and wherein the initial values of the plurality of types of parameters are set in accordance with the selected style and the size corresponding to the producing region.
However, Nishizaki does teach parameters including seam allowance and line addition (Col. 9 Lines 12-14 "Editing methods, such as smoothing of the cutting line, seam allowance setting, line addition, dot conversion, and the like, are allocated to the editable items 83A to 83C", wherein it is known in the art that seam allowance would relate to the size of the region/edge of fabric, see extrinsic evidence Alexei NPL, and therefore frame size; and so would line addition, as it also involves sewing within the region).
Minamikawa teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire a size corresponding to a producing region of the medium (see Fig.2; abstract "sewing system includes a cutting device and a sewing machine"; "sewing machine generates the embroidery data, based on the cutting data received by the sewing machine. The sewing machine sews on the object to be sewn, based on the generated embroidery data"; see Fig. 16; Col. 13 Lines 12-28 "CPU 31 displays...a preview image 80A...in the preview image 80A, the positional relationship between the pattern images 81C to 81F, and the frame image 82 and the region image 83, is adjusted so as to become...aligned"; Col. 13 Lines 19-20 "frame image 82 indicating the embroidery frame 3A").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizaki as taught by Minamikawa as a known method of producing, such as in order to properly position the image (Fig. 8), especially in light of Nishizaki’s parameters.
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 Nishizaki teaches and wherein the initial values of the plurality of types of parameters are set in accordance with the selected style and the size corresponding to the producing region (Nishizaki’s seam allowance/line addition would clearly be affected by the size of the region, and therefore the frame, especially based on Minamikawa Col. 13 Lines 12-28, wherein the size/frame is based on Nishizaki’s selected style, such as embroidery or cutting).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Nishizaki teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 8.
Modified Nishizaki further teaches wherein, in a case where the selected one producing type is sewing performed by a sewing machine by using sewing data for forming stitches on the medium as the producing data (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Nishizaki Figs. 1, 11-12B; Col. 3 Lines 6-7 "system 1 has a server device 2, a sewing machine 3, and a cutting device 4"; Col. 3 Lines 23-24 "sewing machine 3 has a function of sewing an embroidery pattern onto an object 30 to be sewn"),
the size corresponding to the producing region is a size of an embroidery frame that is attached to the sewing machine and that holds the medium (see Minamikawa Fig. 16; Col. 13 Lines 12-28).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Nishizaki teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 8.
Modified Nishizaki further teaches wherein, in a case wherein the selected one producing type is cutting performed by a cutting machine by using cutting data for cutting the medium as the producing data (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Nishizaki Figs. 1, 11, 13A, 13B; see Minamikawa Fig. 2; Col. 3 Line 53 "cutting device 4 cuts an object 40 to be cut"; Col. 3 Lines 54-55 "cutting device 4 has a …cutting portion 43"; Col. 4 Lines 1-5 "cutting portion 43 has a conveyance mechanism….conveyance mechanism conveys…a holding frame 4B that holds the object 40 to be cut"; Col. 4 Lines 9-11 "CPU 41 controls the cutting portion 43...on the basis of the cutting data"),
the size corresponding to the producing region is a size of a mat that is used in the cutting and that holds the medium (see Minamikawa Col. 4 Lines 56-58 "cutting data D1 includes header information, start point and end point coordinate data"; Col. 4 Lines 60-62 "header information includes…type of each of the holding frame 4B, the object 40 to be cut, and the cartridge 4A"; Col. 4 Lines 63-64 "coordinate data indicates the positions of the start point and the end point of each line segment" which involves size of the frame, and therefore mat/object 40, especially in light of Col. 4 Lines 1-5; Col. 5 Lines 3-7 "origin (0,0) of the coordinate system of the coordinate data coincides with the corner of the end portion of the holding frame 4B...and the end portion of the holding frame 4B on the downstream side").
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizaki et al (USPN 11987918), herein Nishizaki, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of in view of Kamihira et al (US Publication 2018/0298535), herein Kamihira.
Regarding Claim 11, Nishizaki teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Nishizaki further teaches wherein the first style is such a style that the target image is converted to the converted image having unclear outlines (inasmuch as the term ‘unclear’ has been defined the claims, the existence of the image converted by first style meets the recitation, see Figs. 11-13B);
wherein the second style is such a style that the target image is converted to the converted image having clearer outlines than the first style (inasmuch as the term ‘unclear’, and therefore ‘clear’ and ‘clearer’ has been defined in the claims, the existence of the image converted the second style meets the recitation, see Figs. 11-13B),
and the second producing type is sewing or cutting (see Figs. 11-13B),
the sewing being performed by a sewing machine by using sewing data for forming stitches on the medium as the producing data (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 3 Lines 6-7 "system 1 has a server device 2, a sewing machine 3, and a cutting device 4"; Col. 3 Lines 23-24 "sewing machine 3 has a function of sewing an embroidery pattern onto an object 30 to be sewn"),
the cutting being performed by a cutting machine by using cutting data for cutting the medium as the producing data (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 3 Lines 6-7 "system 1 has a server device 2, a sewing machine 3, and a cutting device 4"; Col. 3 Lines 47-48 "cutting device 4 cuts an object 40 to be cut, using a cutting blade of a cartridge 4A").
Nishizaki does not explicitly teach wherein the first producing type is printing,
the printing being performed by a printer by using printing data for printing on the medium as the producing data,
wherein, in the case where the first style is acquired as the selected style, the printing data is output as the producing data.
Kamihira teaches wherein the first producing type is printing (see Fig. 1; [0062] "The device 20 can generate the processing data representing the full-size processing pattern. The processing includes, for example, printing, drawing and cutting"; [0075] (C-1) At step S42, instead of the print data, the CPU 1 may generate the processing data to process the processing pattern in full size on a sheet-like processing object different from the sewing object C. The processing data is, for example, cutting data and drawing data that are used in a known cutting device),
the printing being performed by a printer by using printing data for printing on the medium as the producing data (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 1; [0010] "Fig. 1…sewing system 30 including a sewing machine 10, a printer 17, and a sewing data generation device 20").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizaki’s processing capabilities (that already include cutting) with printing as taught by Kamihira, for a wider variety of products, especially as both references have the processing capabilities capable of communicating with a sewing machine.
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 Nishizaki teaches wherein, in the case where the first style is acquired the selected style, the printing data is output as the producing data (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--it would have been obvious that if printing is the third processing option relative to sewing/cutting in Nishizaki, that sewing/cutting data would not be produced, and only the printing data, using similar methods).
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizaki et al (USPN 11987918), herein Nishizaki, in view of Costin (US Publication 2005/0131571).
Regarding Claim 18, Nishizaki teaches a system (see Figs. 1, 5A, 5B; Col. 10 Lines 26-28 "pieces 56A and 56B cut by the cutting device 4 are sewn onto the object 30 to be sewn by the sewing machine 3") comprising:
a display (see Figs. 12A-13B); and
a controller (see Figs. 1, 10; for sewing main process--Col. 6 Lines 18-20 “sewing main process starts in response to the CPU 31…when the user performs, via the input portion 35, an operation to specify an embroidery pattern and send the embroidery data to the cutting device 4”; for cutting main process--Col. 8 Line 6 "cutting main process starts in response to the CPU 41”; Col. 8 Lines 13-15 “CPU 41 acquires the type of data selected by the operation performed via the input portion 45 (the embroidery data or the cutting data) (step S31)") configured to:
acquire a target image (see Fig. 11 for final product, indicating there was an initial target image; for sewing main process--Col. 6 Lines 18-20 embroidery pattern; for cutting main process-- Col. 8 Lines 4-10 “cutting main process executed by the CPU 41…when an operation has been performed by the user, via the input portion 45, the select the embroidery data or the cutting data”, wherein Figs. 12A, 13A show the target images for sewing main process and cutting main process, respectively),
acquire a selected style from a plurality of types of image styles including a first style and a second style (see Figs. 11-13B; Col. 8 Lines 31- 42 "When the type of data selected by the user is the embroidery data (yes at step S37)…hereinafter, a case is assumed in which the embroidery data D2 illustrated in Fig. 6 is received. The CPU 41 displays a preview image 8A illustrated in Fig. 12A"; Col. 9 Lines 34-46 "on the other hand, when the type of data selected by the user is the cutting data (no at step 37)...hereinafter...will assume a case in which the cutting data for cutting the object 40...has been received"; first style = embroidery; second style = cutting, wherein user selection indicates acquiring),
in a case where the first style is acquired as the selected style,
generate a first converted image by converting the target image into the first style (Fig. 11 resulting product),
select one producing type from a first producing candidate associated with the first style (types = Col. 9 Lines 12-14 "Editing methods, such as smoothing of the cutting line, seam allowance setting, line addition, dot conversion, and the like, are allocated to the editable items 83A to 83C"; wherein the first producing candidate are options 83A to 83B in Fig. 13B),
the first producing candidate including a first producing type and not including a second producing type (Col. 9 Lines 12-14; second producing type is smoothing, first producing type is one of the others, wherein option 83C is not shown in Fig. 13B, unlike Fig. 12B),
generate, from the first converted image, a first producing data for producing a sheet-like medium by the selected one producing type (wherein Fig. 13B results in a final product Fig. 11 of a sheet-like medium that would be from a first producing data); and
in a case where the second style is acquired as the selected style,
generate a second converted image by converting the target image into the second style (Fig. 11 resulting product),
select one producing type from a second producing candidate associated with the second style (types = Col. 9 Lines 12-14 "Editing methods, such as smoothing of the cutting line, seam allowance setting, line addition, dot conversion, and the like, are allocated to the editable items 83A to 83C"; wherein the second producing candidate are options 83A to 83C in Fig. 12B),
the second producing candidate including both the first producing type and the second producing type (Col. 9 Lines 12-14; second producing type is smoothing, first producing type is one of the others, wherein option 83C is shown in Fig. 12B, unlike in Fig. 13B),
generate, from the second converted image, a second producing data for producing a sheet-like medium by the selected one producing type (wherein Fig. 12B results in a final product Fig. 11 of a sheet-like medium that would be from a second producing data).
Nishizaki does not explicitly teach display a first producing image representing the first producing data; and
display a second producing image representing the second producing data.
Costin teaches display a producing image based on the producing data (see Figs. 5, 7; [0034] "Fig. 5 allows the user to selection of the area to apply the desired graphic"; [0036] "user then selects a graphic to be formed on the denim"; [0043] "selected graphic is shown simulated on the jeans"; in other words, the resulting/producing image is displayed based on the producing data/converted image/selection/edit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizaki to display as taught by Costin such that the user can determine whether the selection is desirable and modify accordingly ([0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 18 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. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Withdrawn claims should be amended throughout prosecution to be considered for rejoinder.
Pertaining to remarks on page 12 that Nishizaki cannot equate embroidery and cutting as image styles as they are producing types—examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, embroidery and cutting are image styles inasmuch as they are selections that affect the style of the final image. Merely because the specification discloses cutting as a producing type does not require such a narrow interpretation as currently remarked.
As such, pertaining to remarks on page 12 that Nishizaki does not teach selecting a producing type from candidates-- examiner respectfully disagrees, especially as page 12 outlines exactly how Nishizaki Figs. 12B and 13B do exactly that, with embroidery and cutting as image styles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Bell et al (USPN 10891035), Minamikawa et al (US Publication 2022/0316113) directed to hiding interface options based on previously selected interface options.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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