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 .
1. Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 02/13/2026 is entered. Claims 1-20 are canceled and new claims 21-40 are added. Claims 21-40 are pending for examination.
2. Continuity: This application filed 06/02/2025 is a Continuation of 16449980, filed 06/24/2019, now U.S. Patent # 12340404 and is a Continuation of 14470881 , filed 08/27/2014 ,now U.S. Patent # 10332173 and 14470881 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 61954491 , filed 03/17/2014 and from Provisional Application 61870731 , filed 08/27/2013.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3.1. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No 12340404, hereinafter Patent’404, Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to custom designing a product such as a memorial product. A comparison below of the highlighted limitations of claim 1 of the Patent’404 teaches all the underlined limitations of claim 21 of the instant application.
Patent ‘404
1. A system for generating a virtual memorial product, the system comprising:
a processor; a display device, wherein the display device comprises a web-based interface; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the computer-readable storage medium contains one or more programming instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive, via the web-based interface, subject information and customer information,
receive, via the web-based interface, one or more design elements and one or more memorial product characteristics associated with a three-dimensional memorial product, wherein the three-dimensional memorial product comprises at least one of a grave marker, a headstone, an urn, a vase, a plaque, a medal, a trophy, a sculpture, a statue, a scroll, granite, a niche plate, a crypt plate, crypt text, emblems, or a casket,
restrict a combination of the one or more design elements and the one or more memorial product characteristics based on design rule information,
generate at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product, using at least one design function, based on the one or more memorial product characteristics, the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product comprising at least one memorial product template and at least one virtual design element selected based on the subject information and the customer information,
wherein at least one virtual design function comprises a collision detection design function configured to detect whether a threshold distance exists between the one or more design elements and to detect whether each of the one or more design elements is affixed to a portion of the least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product,
display, on the web-based interface, the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product, and
generate an order for a physical three-dimensional memorial product based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product,
wherein the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product is usable by a computing device to automatically print or produce at least part of the physical three-dimensional memorial product.
Claim 21 of the instant application:
21. A system for generating a virtual memorial product, the system comprising:
a processor; a display device configured to display a web-based interface; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the computer-readable storage medium contains one or more programming instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive, via the web-based interface, subject information and customer information;
receive, via the web-based interface, one or more design elements and one or more memorial product characteristics associated with a physical three-dimensional memorial product, wherein the physical three-dimensional memorial product comprises at least one of a grave marker, a headstone, an urn, a vase, a plaque, a medal, a trophy, a sculpture, a statue, a scroll, granite, a niche plate, a crypt plate, crypt text, emblems, or a casket;
generate at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product based on at least one memorial product template associated with the physical three-dimensional memorial product and at least one virtual design element based on the subject information and the customer information;
display, via the web-based interface, the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product; and
generate an order for the physical three-dimensional memorial product based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product.
The other two independent claims 22 and 32 of the instant application recite limitations similar to claim 21 and are analyzed on the same basis as disclosed by the limitations of claim 1 of the Patent’ 404.
Examiner has reviewed the dependent claims of the instant application and the limitations of claims 23-24, 26-30, and 33-39 are covered by the limitations of claims 16, 7, 14, and 17 of the Patent’404. The limitations of the dependent claims 25 and 35 relate to using a snap-to-grid design tool and claims 31 and 40 recite generating a 3D image file for a virtual 3D product of the instant application, which are simply well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and do not render the claims patentably distinct.
3.2. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10332173, hereinafter Patent’ 173 over Official Notice.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to custom designing a product such as a memorial product. A comparison below of the highlighted limitations of claims 1-2 of the Patent’173 teaches all the underlined limitations of claim 21 of the instant application, except for the limitation that the data is received on a web-based interface, Examiner takes Official Notic of the well-known fact of the use of web-based interfaces on computers for receiving data. Therefore, in view of the Official notice, 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 the Patent’173 to incorporate the concept of using a web-based interface for receiving data, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Patent’ 173
1. A system for generating a virtual memorial product, the system comprising:
a processor; a display device; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the computer-readable storage medium contains one or more programming instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive subject information and customer information, obtain, from a third party entity, one or more memorial product characteristics;
generate at least one virtual memorial product based on the one or more memorial product characteristics, the at least one virtual memorial product comprising at least one memorial product template and at least one virtual design element selected based on the subject information and the customer information,
display, on the display device, the at least one virtual memorial product, wherein displaying the at least one virtual memorial product comprises: displaying a three dimensional (3D) visual representation of the at least one virtual memorial product,
providing a user with an ability to change a spatial orientation of the displayed 3D visual representation to view each side of the virtual memorial product, and
displaying a visual representation of a physical memorial product in an actual placement location where the physical memorial product is to be installed, and
generate an order for a physical memorial product based on the at least one virtual memorial product,
wherein the virtual memorial product is usable by a manufacturer to print or produce the physical memorial product.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual memorial product comprises at least one of a grave marker, a headstone, an urn, a vase, a plaque, a medal, a trophy, an award, a sculpture, a statue, a sign, a picture, a display, and a combination thereof.
Claim 21 of the instant application:
21. A system for generating a virtual memorial product, the system comprising:
a processor; a display device configured to display a web-based interface; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the computer-readable storage medium contains one or more programming instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive, via the web-based interface, subject information and customer information;
receive, via the web-based interface, one or more design elements and one or more memorial product characteristics associated with a physical three-dimensional memorial product, wherein the physical three-dimensional memorial product comprises at least one of a grave marker, a headstone, an urn, a vase, a plaque, a medal, a trophy, a sculpture, a statue, a scroll, granite, a niche plate, a crypt plate, crypt text, emblems, or a casket;
generate at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product based on at least one memorial product template associated with the physical three-dimensional memorial product and at least one virtual design element based on the subject information and the customer information;
display, via the web-based interface, the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product; and
generate an order for the physical three-dimensional memorial product based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product.
The other two independent claims, 22 and 32 of the instant application recite similar limitations to claim 21 and are analyzed on the same basis as disclosed by the limitations of claims 1-2 of the Patent’ 173 over Official Notice.
Examiner has reviewed the dependent claims of the instant application and the limitations of claims 23-30, and 33-39 are covered by the limitations of claims 1, 14, 5, 15, 6-9 of the Patent’404. The limitations of the dependent claims 31 and 40 relate to recite generating a 3D image file for a virtual 3D product of the instant application, which is simply well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and do not render the claims patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 32-40 are to a process comprising a series of steps, and claims 21-31 to a system /apparatus, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 22 recites:
22. A system for generating a virtual product, the system comprising:
a processor;
a display device configured to display a web-based interface; and
a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the computer-readable storage medium contains one or more programming instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive, via the web-based interface, subject information and customer information;
receive, via the web-based interface, one or more design elements and one or more product characteristics associated with a physical three-dimensional product;
generate at least one virtual three-dimensional product based on at least one product template associated with the physical three-dimensional product and at least one virtual design element based on the subject information and the customer information
display, via the web-based interface, the at least one virtual three-dimensional product, and
generate an order for the physical three-dimensional based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional product.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 21-40recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations in claim 22 comprising, “receive subject information and customer information; receive one or more design elements and one or more product characteristics associated with a physical three-dimensional product; and generate an order for the physical three-dimensional based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional product.”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite commercial activity of generating orders based on received customer information with subject information and for the three dimensional object, such as a memorial product or casket fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
The limitations, “generate an order for the physical three-dimensional based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional product.” fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator based on received customer information, design elements for the required product and other characteristics can evaluate and generate an order. The mere nominal recitation of a computer implementing does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] II. MENTAL PROCESSES: claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); • a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Thus, the claim 22 recites a mental process.
If a claim that includes two or more abstract ideas groupings per Step 2A, Prong One, as per MPEP 2106.04, subsection IIB, under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here the claim 22 recites both certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process groupings of abstract ideas, which are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 21 and 32 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis reciting certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process groupings of abstract ideas.
Thus, claims 21, 22 with dependent claims 23-31, and claim 32 with its dependent claims 33-40 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 21-40: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer implementing the steps of: (i) receive, via the web-based interface, subject information and customer information; (ii) receive, via the web-based interface, one or more design elements and one or more product characteristics associated with a physical three-dimensional product; (iii) generate at least one virtual three-dimensional product based on at least one product template associated with the physical three-dimensional product and at least one virtual design element based on the subject information and the customer information; (iv) display, via the web-based interface, the at least one virtual three-dimensional product, and (v) generate an order for the physical three-dimensional based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional product.
The limitations in steps (i), (ii), and (iv) are mere data gathering and output/display recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output/display, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output/display. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, these limitations are recited as being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving data and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations of step (v) the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in step (iii) generate at least one virtual three-dimensional product based on at least one product template associated with the physical three-dimensional product and at least one virtual design element based on the subject information and the customer information, are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. In fact, the clam limitations do not improve the generating of a virtual 3D product based on a predetermined template of the product and received design element and customer information. These limitations merely recite long standing practice of using CAD to generate a 3D virtual product and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 22 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea. Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 21 and 32 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner has reviewed the dependent clams 23-31 from the base claim 22, and their limitations mere recite generic computer functions of using a processor to print a 3D product , add different elements to the virtual 3D product on the computer screen, generating a 3D image file of a 3D product and reciting non-functional descriptive subject matter, which are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology and as such do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims 33-40 are already covered in limitations of 23-29 and 31 and are analyzed on the same basis as not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 21-40 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 21-40 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 21-40 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic -computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic -computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As per MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element or elements is/are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity in step 2A should be re-evaluated in step 2B. Here the receiving, and output/displaying steps were considered are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity activities in step 2A and thus it is re-evaluated in step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, the conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general- purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The steps of using a computer to print 3D products or creating an image file of the virtual 3D product merely amount to Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 21-24 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, pending claims 21-40, as drafted, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5.1. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trounce [US 20130060655 A1] in view of Proudfoot [US Patent# 7894924 B2] in view of Bienias [US 20110137758 A1]
Regarding claim 21, Trounce teaches a system for generating a virtual memorial product, the system comprising:
a processor; a display device, wherein the display device comprises a web-based interface; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium contains one or more programming (see para 0016, “Methods, systems, apparatuses, and computer-readable media are provided for allowing users to obtain personalized bereavement packages. ……. The present invention further provides, …. ordering platform adapted to assist users with the creation, personalization and ordering of bereavement products and services that can generate bereavement package data based on the plurality of package selections received from the user. The bereavement package data includes product selection data indicating a plurality of print-based bereavement products selected by the user”. Also see Figs 5-24 which disclose a web server displaying data on a web-client.]; instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive, via the web-based interface, subject information and customer information, receive, via the web-based interface, one or more memorial product characteristics associated with a three-dimensional memorial product [ see Trounce paras 0050 --051 “Using the software platform and corresponding systems and methods, any user can intuitively design, create and order personalized funeral and memorial products …… such as stationery, condolence books, memorial albums and DVDs, … gathering information regarding the desired products and services, a user (such as an employee at the funeral home) may access a web-based ordering service whereby the user can design, personalize, and order each of the products and services for the customer. …. input the customer's information, select the desired products and services and specify the particular features, content and layout of each such product and service. Once the user has selected and/or designed each of the desired products and services, the user may then submit the order for the products and services. When an order is submitted, it may be received by a vendor (such as a central printing service). …... When an order is processed, the vendor may create and/or print each of products and services corresponding to the order. ……[0051] ……. the products and services that may be provided through the web-based ordering service include, but are not limited to, order of service cards, attendance cards, thank you cards, envelopes, memorial or condolence books, memorial photo albums, memorial CDs or DVDs, bookmarks, ….., keepsake boxes and various other types of stationery, poster boards, books, media, and other funeral service or memorial related items…….”. In these two paragraphs Trounce teaches gathering customized information via a web-based service on three-dimensional physical memorial products such as order of condolence books, memorial photo albums, keepsake boxes and various other types of books, etc., which are displayed on a display device enabling a user [user here is one who receives the order and designs the memorial product as per the custom features desired by a customer] to customize them];
Trounce teaches to generate at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product , based on at least one or more memorial product template associated with the physical three-dimensional memorial product and at least one virtual design element based on the subject information, display, via the web-based interface, the at least one virtual three dimensional memorial product, and generate an order for the physical three-dimensional memorial product based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product [see para 0053, “ the products and services that may be provided through the web-based ordering service include, but are not limited to, order of service cards, attendance cards, thank you cards, envelopes, memorial or condolence books, memorial photo albums, memorial CDs or DVDs, bookmarks, memorial websites, keepsake boxes and various other types of stationery, poster boards, books, media, and other funeral service or memorial related items”, which discloses a web-based ordering system for a physical memorial products [see para 0051] which include items such as memorial photo albums, CDs, DVDs, keepsake boxes, condolence books etc.. but before that the website allows a client to virtually design, customize, and display the desired product based on the gathered information using a template and a design element such as a style, based on the geographic location, occupation, hobbies, beliefs or interests of the deceased individual, such as military, sporting or religious themes. See paras 0065, 0067 and 0073 which disclose using computers to present graphical representation of memorial products to be ordered. Such memorial products including three-dimensional products such as keepsake boxes and condolence books can be designed/ generated and virtually presented. Trounce fails to disclose that the three- dimensional memorial product comprises at least one of a grave marker, a headstone, an urn, a vase, a plaque, a medal, a trophy, a sculpture, a statue, a scroll, granite, a niche plate, a crypt plate, crypt text, emblems, or a casket. Proudfoot, in the same field of designing memorial product, teaches that the physical memorial product can be at least one of a grave marker, a plaque, a trophy , a vase, an emblem, granite, or a scroll. Since the clam language utilizes “OR” in the series of the products listed, the prior art reference can address only one element. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Proudfoot it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Application to have modified Trounce to include the concept of including memorial products from at least one of a grave marker, a headstone, an urn, a vase, a plaque, a medal, a trophy, a sculpture, a statue, a scroll, granite, a niche plate, a crypt plate, crypt text, emblems, or a casket, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Trounce fails to specify that the virtual graphical representation generated is a virtual three-dimensional representation of the physical three-dimensional memorial product, and that one virtual-three-dimensional memorial product is displayed on the web-based interface. At the time of the Applicant’s invention it was a known practice to use CAD techniques to provide virtual design representing three-dimensional products and displaying them on a web-based interface, see Bienias [paras 0016, 0031, 0034, “ [0016] It is another object to provide a comprehensive system for performing virtual customized vehicle design which allows for display of a realistic three dimensional virtual image of a selected vehicle including real time depiction of the vehicle as various components are added/deleted”, “0031] Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, a representative vehicle displayed on a simulated webpage, generally designated by the numeral 10, is shown, the vehicle 10 to be customized and, if desired, purchased using the system of the present invention”, and “ 0034 …..It should be noted that all aspects of the vehicle configuration will be customizable using the web interface 33 as shown in FIG. 1 including, but not limited to, vehicle color, engine size, interior treatments, rims, tires, grills, hood ornaments, spoilers etc. ….. a simulation of the vehicle interior will be shown, the display being facilitated by way of a suitable CAD/CAM program configured in accordance with the specific requirements of the system of the invention. For example, if the user chooses a full complement of oval gauges, with walnut trim, black leather seats, and gold floor mats, the display in FIG. 1 will display, with sufficient resolution and detail, the selected vehicle interior with the layout as modified by the components chosen. The particular component under consideration (i.e., the most recent component selected) will be displayed in box 35, with the text data as described above.”. These excerpts disclose using CAD/CAM programs to provide virtual designs including graphical three-dimensional representation of solid objects such as vehicles and the virtual design displaying graphical representation including a descriptive text element such as “MSRP/Date “, related to description of the object on a web interface]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Bienias it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Application to have modified Trounce to include the concept of using prevalent CAD/CAM techniques to generate a graphical virtual design displaying virtual three-dimensional representation of a physical three dimensional solid object such as a memorial product on a web-based interface, because as shown in Bienias it enables to show and represent solid objects such as vehicles or memorial products with the facility to make changes as required by a user including text elements describing features of the related memorial product. ].
5.2. Claims 22, 24, 26, 29, 30 and 32, 34, 36, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias [US 20110137758 A1].
Regarding claim 22, Trounce teaches a system for generating a virtual memorial product, the system comprising:
a processor; a display device, wherein the display device comprises a web-based interface; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium contains one or more programming (see para 0016, “Methods, systems, apparatuses, and computer-readable media are provided for allowing users to obtain personalized bereavement packages. ……. The present invention further provides, …. ordering platform adapted to assist users with the creation, personalization and ordering of bereavement products and services that can generate bereavement package data based on the plurality of package selections received from the user. The bereavement package data includes product selection data indicating a plurality of print-based bereavement products selected by the user”. Also see Figs 5-24 which disclose a web server displaying data on a web-client.]; instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive, via the web-based interface, subject information and customer information, receive, via the web-based interface, one or more memorial product characteristics associated with a three-dimensional memorial product [ see Trounce paras 0050 --051 “Using the software platform and corresponding systems and methods, any user can intuitively design, create and order personalized funeral and memorial products …… such as stationery, condolence books, memorial albums and DVDs, … gathering information regarding the desired products and services, a user (such as an employee at the funeral home) may access a web-based ordering service whereby the user can design, personalize, and order each of the products and services for the customer. …. input the customer's information, select the desired products and services and specify the particular features, content and layout of each such product and service. Once the user has selected and/or designed each of the desired products and services, the user may then submit the order for the products and services. When an order is submitted, it may be received by a vendor (such as a central printing service). …... When an order is processed, the vendor may create and/or print each of products and services corresponding to the order. ……[0051] ……. the products and services that may be provided through the web-based ordering service include, but are not limited to, order of service cards, attendance cards, thank you cards, envelopes, memorial or condolence books, memorial photo albums, memorial CDs or DVDs, bookmarks, ….., keepsake boxes and various other types of stationery, poster boards, books, media, and other funeral service or memorial related items…….”. In these two paragraphs Trounce teaches gathering customized information via a web-based service on three-dimensional physical memorial products such as order of condolence books, memorial photo albums, keepsake boxes and various other types of books, etc., which are displayed on a display device enabling a user [user here is one who receives the order and designs the memorial product as per the custom features desired by a customer] to customize them];
Trounce teaches to generate at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product , based on at least one or more memorial product template associated with the physical three-dimensional memorial product and at least one virtual design element based on the subject information, display, via the web-based interface, the at least one virtual three dimensional memorial product, and generate an order for the physical three-dimensional memorial product based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional memorial product [see para 0053, “ the products and services that may be provided through the web-based ordering service include, but are not limited to, order of service cards, attendance cards, thank you cards, envelopes, memorial or condolence books, memorial photo albums, memorial CDs or DVDs, bookmarks, memorial websites, keepsake boxes and various other types of stationery, poster boards, books, media, and other funeral service or memorial related items”, which discloses a web-based ordering system for a physical memorial products [see para 0051] which include items such as memorial photo albums, CDs, DVDs, keepsake boxes, condolence books etc.. but before that the website allows a client to virtually design, customize, and display the desired product based on the gathered information using a template and a design element such as a style, based on the geographic location, occupation, hobbies, beliefs or interests of the deceased individual, such as military, sporting or religious themes. See paras 0065, 0067 and 0073 which disclose using computers to present graphical representation of memorial products to be ordered. Such memorial products including three-dimensional products such as keepsake boxes and condolence books can be designed/ generated and virtually presented.
Trounce fails to specify that the virtual graphical representation generated is a virtual three-dimensional representation of the physical three-dimensional memorial product, and that one virtual-three-dimensional memorial product is displayed on the web-based interface. At the time of the Applicant’s invention it was a known practice to use CAD techniques to provide virtual design representing three-dimensional products and displaying them on a web-based interface, see Bienias [paras 0016, 0031, 0034, “ [0016] It is another object to provide a comprehensive system for performing virtual customized vehicle design which allows for display of a realistic three dimensional virtual image of a selected vehicle including real time depiction of the vehicle as various components are added/deleted”, “0031] Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, a representative vehicle displayed on a simulated webpage, generally designated by the numeral 10, is shown, the vehicle 10 to be customized and, if desired, purchased using the system of the present invention”, and “ 0034 …..It should be noted that all aspects of the vehicle configuration will be customizable using the web interface 33 as shown in FIG. 1 including, but not limited to, vehicle color, engine size, interior treatments, rims, tires, grills, hood ornaments, spoilers etc. ….. a simulation of the vehicle interior will be shown, the display being facilitated by way of a suitable CAD/CAM program configured in accordance with the specific requirements of the system of the invention. For example, if the user chooses a full complement of oval gauges, with walnut trim, black leather seats, and gold floor mats, the display in FIG. 1 will display, with sufficient resolution and detail, the selected vehicle interior with the layout as modified by the components chosen. The particular component under consideration (i.e., the most recent component selected) will be displayed in box 35, with the text data as described above.”. These excerpts disclose using CAD/CAM programs to provide virtual designs including graphical three-dimensional representation of solid objects such as vehicles and the virtual design displaying graphical representation including a descriptive text element such as “MSRP/Date “, related to description of the object on a web interface]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Bienias it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Application to have modified Trounce to include the concept of using prevalent CAD/CAM techniques to generate a graphical virtual design displaying virtual three-dimensional representation of a physical three dimensional solid object such as a memorial product on a web-based interface, because as shown in Bienias it enables to show and represent solid objects such as vehicles or memorial products with the facility to make changes as required by a user including text elements describing features of the related memorial product. ].
Regarding claim 24, Trounce teaches the limitations, “the system of claim 22, wherein the one or more programming instructions further causes the processor to automatically select the at least one virtual design element based on design rule information comprising preferences associated with the subject information and the customer information [see para 0053, “ the products and services that may be provided through the web-based ordering service include, but are not limited to, order of service cards, attendance cards, thank you cards, envelopes, memorial or condolence books, memorial photo albums, memorial CDs or DVDs, bookmarks, memorial websites, keepsake boxes and various other types of stationery, poster boards, books, media, and other funeral service or memorial related items”, which discloses a web-based ordering system for a physical memorial products [see para 0051] which include items such as memorial photo albums, CDs, DVDs, keepsake boxes, condolence books etc.. but before that the website allows a client to virtually design, customize, and display the desired product based on the gathered information using a template and a design element such as a style, based on the geographic location, occupation, hobbies, beliefs or interests of the deceased individual, such as military, sporting or religious themes. See paras 0065, 0067 and 0073 which disclose using computers to present graphical representation of memorial products to be ordered. Such memorial products including three-dimensional products such as keepsake boxes and condolence books can be designed/ generated and virtually presented. The design rule relates to the selection is done based on a template based on a geographic location.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations, “The system of claim 22, wherein the one or more programming instructions further cause the processor to: add the at least one virtual design element to the at least one virtual three-dimensional product using a target location design function.”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 22 above [See Trounce para 0051].
Regarding claims 29, Trounce teaches that the subject information comprises at least one of name, age, gender, religion, nationality, native language, marital status, familial relationships, organizational affiliations, vocation, and education . (see para 0053, “ For each such product or service, the web-based ordering service may allow the user to personalize the product or service by presenting the user with various templates, styles and/or designs from which to choose. One or more styles and templates may be targeted to certain customers based on the geographic location, occupation, hobbies, beliefs or interests of the deceased individual, such as military, sporting or religious themes. ….. user may further personalize the products and service by inputting or uploading custom content, such as text, images, videos and/or sound to the products and services.).
Regarding claim 30, Trounce teaches that the system of claim 22, wherein the customer information comprises information associated with a cemetery [See Trounce paragraphs 16, 50, 53, 58-59 which covers all the limitations comprising that the gathered information comprises information associated with a user/customer, the at least one virtual memorial product such as a picture frame, keepsake box is selected based on the user/customer, the at least one design element is selected based on the user/customer, and wherein the at least one virtual memorial product and the at least one design element are selected based on the user/computer. Since the user/customer could be any entity including a cemetery operator as already defined in the Applicant’s Specification paragraph 0045, “ a customer may include an owner or operator of a cemetery (a “cemetarian”),” the teachings of Trounce, as analyzed above read on all the limitations of claim 30. .
Regarding claims 32, 34, 36, and 39, since their limitations are similar to the limitations of claims 22, 24, 26, and 29, they are analyzed on the same basis as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias.
5.2. Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of Mahdavi [US 20120281013 A1].
The combined teachings of Trounce, and Bienias, teach and render generating a virtual product [memorial] but fails to teach using a control device to print or produce at least part of the physical three-dimensional memorial product. In the analogous art of using CAD scripts to generate 3D virtual images of objects and produce objects/products, Mahdavi teaches use of 3D printers to print and produce products from 3D images generated using a CAD script [see Mahdavi paras: 0020, “The method may further comprise sending the finalized design file to a three-dimensional printer, the three-dimensional printer being arranged to manufacture a three-dimensional object in accordance with the finalized design file. In this way, personalized designs for the second user can be manufactured rapidly and inexpensively into products’, para 0047, “ Once the 3D object representation has been finalized, it can be sent to an industrial printing process which can create (print) real 3D objects according to the specifications of the CAD representation. This printing process is a laser sintering process which involves sequentially manufacturing layer upon layer of the object of the representation and fusing the layers together using high powered lasers until the actual object is created.”, and also see paras 0035, 0038] . Therefore, in view of the teachings of Mahdavi it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Application to have modified Trounce in view of Bienias as applied to claim 1, to incorporate the concept of using 3D printers [3D printer is a computing device] to automatically use the 3D virtual images of objects/products to print or produce the object/product including memorial objects, because as shown in Mahdavi [see para 0020, “ The method may further comprising sending the finalized design file to a three-dimensional printer, the three-dimensional printer being arranged to manufacture a three-dimensional object in accordance with the finalized design file. In this way, personalized designs for the second user can be manufactured rapidly and inexpensively into products because it would help to manufacturing the objects/products rapidly using the virtual 3D images of the objects/products generated using CAD.
Regarding claim 33, since its limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 23, it is analyzed on the same basis as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of Mahdavi.
5.3. Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of in view Johnson et al. [US 20120144327 A1], hereinafter Johnson.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings of Trounce, and Bienias, teach and render generating a virtual product [memorial], as analyzed above, but fails to teach that the one or more programming instructions further cause the processor to: add the at least one virtual design element to the at least one virtual three-dimensional product using a snap-to-grid design function. Johnson, in the same field of providing design tools, teaches using the concept of snap-on-grid design function [see para 0054, “ However, in order to aid users in "lining up" design elements positioned on the console 26, a snap grid may be implemented such as a snap grid of 10 px by 10 px or with other dimensions. The snap grid operates in the same manner as conventional snap grids which automatically position objects so, as to be aligned with an invisible grid having specified dimensions or to other objects. In some embodiments, the snap grid feature may be turned off by the user of tool 20.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Johnson, in the same field of endeavor of design tools, it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Application to have modified Trounce/Bienias to incorporate the concept of that the at least one design function of snap-on-grind is used because it can help, as shown in Johnson, to align the objects, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 35, since its limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 25, it is analyzed on the same basis as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of Johnson.
5.4. Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of in view Chuan-Jun Su, Lin Fu-Hua and Xiao-ke Zhang, "An efficient collision detection methodology for virtual assembly," SMC'98 Conference Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.98CH36218), San Diego, CA, USA, 1998, pp. 360-365 vol.1, retrieved from IP. COM on 09012026; hereinafter Su.
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings of Trounce and Bienias teach and render obvious the limitations of the base claims 22, as analyzed above, but fails to disclose that the system of claim 22, wherein the one or more programming instructions further cause the processor to: add the at least one virtual design element to the at least one virtual three-dimensional product using a collision detection design function. SU, in the same field of endeavor of virtual designing of assemblies teaches [see page 360 under Introduction] using a collision detection algorithm for detection collision between components in an assembly . Therefore, in view of the teachings of SU in the same field of endeavor of designing virtual assemblies, 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 the combined teachings of Trounce and Bienias applied to claim 22 to incorporate the concept of adding at least one virtual design element to the at least one virtual three-dimensional product using a collision detection design function, so that to reflect if more than one object cannot occupy the same space [See SU Abstract] and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 37, since its limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 27, it is analyzed on the same basis as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of Su.
55. Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of in view Proudfoot.
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings of Trounce and Bienias teach and render obvious the limitations of the base claims 22, as analyzed above, but fails to disclose that the system of claim 22, wherein the one or more programming instructions further cause the processor to: add the at least one virtual design element to the at least one virtual three-dimensional product using a placeholder design function. Proudfoot, in the same field of endeavor of designing memorial products, teaches the missing limitations (See Proudfoot: See at least Col. 9, L 19-40 - note: the shape of the blank pattern is a three-dimensional solid (i.e., placeholder design function). The customer can create letters and design objects and upload (Col. 8, L 64-67) those objects into the system which are not included in the system design element inventory and then the graphical design objects are laid on the projector images of the memorial). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Proudfoot in the same field of endeavor as that of Trounce of enabling web designing and building three-dimensional memorial products it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Application to have modified Trounce/Bienias to incorporate the concept of that the at least one design function is a placeholder design function that is configured to represent a virtual design element not included in a system design element inventory, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 38, since its limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 28, it is analyzed on the same basis as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of Proudfoot.
5.6. Claims 31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of in view TW I248023 B, hereinafter TW’023B
Regarding claim 31, the combined teachings of Trounce and Bienias teach and render obvious the limitations of the base claims 22, as analyzed above, but fails to disclose that the system of claim 22, wherein the one or more programming instructions further cause the processor to: generate a three-dimensional image file based on the at least one virtual three-dimensional product. TW’023B [See page 9] in the same field of generating and storing data files[image files] of solid objects describes a program for generating a virtual image file of a three-dimensional space and a production item according to the file generated by the program of the third unit, “The fourth unit can contain a program for generating a virtual image file of a three-dimensional space and a production item, and the program can make the house virtual according to the file generated by the program of the third unit. Real. This total assembly can be sold as a commercial product.”. so that the total assembly can be sold as a commercial product. Therefore, in view of the teachings of TW’023B , in the same field of endeavor of generating and storing data files[image files] of solid objects, it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Application to have modified Trounce/Bienias to incorporate the concept of that the at least generate a three-dimensional image file based on the at least one virtual three- dimensional product, so that, as shown in TW’032B, total assembly can be sold as a commercial product, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 40, since its limitations are similar to the limitations of claim 31, it is analyzed on the same basis as being unpatentable over Trounce in view of Bienias in view of TW’023B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights