DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 371 of PCT/KR2020/017202 filed 11/27/2020.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2019-0175993 filed 12/27/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/22 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process and claim 12 is directed to a statutory category as a machine which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1 and 12 recite the abstract idea of designing an interior layout by a user which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 12, the limitation of “generating, according to a style information analysis process corresponding to the user, interior layout automation information including a space layout and an interior arrangement design determined in correspondence to the indoor structure information;” would be analogous to a person designing an interior layout of a structure based on a style and thus fall under Mental Processes.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 12 of “acquiring indoor structure information of a user;” and “outputting the interior layout automation information” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “acquiring indoor structure information of a user;” and “outputting the interior layout automation information” in claims 1 and 12, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 12 of “acquiring indoor structure information of a user;” and “outputting the interior layout automation information” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “acquiring indoor structure information of a user;” and “outputting the interior layout automation information” in claims 1 and 12, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 13 further defines the rendering of the interior which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. Alternatively the output and rendering limitations would represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitations can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3 and 14 further recites receiving data which represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitations can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4, 5, and 15 further recites receiving video data which represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitations can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6 and 16 further recites the calculation of a cost function which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This limitation would also represent mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 7, 8, and 17 further defines the types of variables used in the rendering of the interior which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This limitation would also represent mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 further generates additional variables used in a cost function of the interior which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This limitation would also represent mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 10 and 19 further generates additional calculations and rendering of the interior which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This limitation would also represent mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 11 and 20 further recites additional calculations and determinations of the interior which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This limitation would also represent mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in claims 12-13, 15, and 19-20 the “a control unit acquiring indoor structure information of a user according to a user input;”, “a style information analysis unit performing a style information analysis process corresponding to the user;”, “a layout generation processing unit generating, according to the style information analysis process, interior layout automation information including a space layout and an interior arrangement design determined in correspondence to the indoor structure information;” and “an output unit outputting the interior layout automation information.” As per claim 14, “an input unit receiving style-related information corresponding to the user.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
8. Claim limitation in claims 12-13, 15, and 19-20 the “a control unit acquiring indoor structure information of a user according to a user input;”, “a style information analysis unit performing a style information analysis process corresponding to the user;”, “a layout generation processing unit generating, according to the style information analysis process, interior layout automation information including a space layout and an interior arrangement design determined in correspondence to the indoor structure information;”, “an output unit outputting the interior layout automation information.” and as per claim 14, “an input unit receiving style-related information corresponding to the user” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the non-structurally limiting recitations with respect to the “control unit” see [0094]-[0095], and with respect to the “style information analysis unit” see [0051]-[0053], and with respect to the “layout generation processing unit” see [0059]-[0060], and with respect to the “output unit” see [0084]-[0089], and an “input unit” examples in [0050].
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kán, Peter, and Hannes Kaufmann. "Automated interior design using a genetic algorithm." Proceedings of the 23rd ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. 2017, hereafter Kan.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses An operation method of an interior layout apparatus, the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring indoor structure information of a user; (Kan. Page 2, Section 2, 3rd paragraph, “Recently, two methods were proposed which model 3D interior scenes based on the human activities per formed in these scenes [Fisher et al. 2015; Ma et al. 2016]. The first method requires a 3D scan of the real environment to populate the virtual space with objects and the second one needs the initial scene layout to augment this layout by additional objects.”)
generating, according to a style information analysis process corresponding to the user, interior layout automation information including a space layout and an interior arrangement design determined in correspondence to the indoor structure information; and (Kan. Page 2, Section 2, 4th paragraph, “Optimization-based methods generate realistic furniture arrangements by optimizing a cost function. Typically, this cost function includes ergonomic, aesthetic and functional terms. The methods for the optimization of furniture arrangement based on evolutionary computing were proposed in [Akase and Okada 2013; Sanchez et al. 2003]. Similarly to these methods, our method also utilizes evolutionary computing, however, in contrast to them, it generates the final arrangement automatically without user assistance.”)
outputting the interior layout automation information. (Kan. Page 2, Section 2, 4th paragraph, “Optimization-based methods generate realistic furniture arrangements by optimizing a cost function. Typically, this cost function includes ergonomic, aesthetic and functional terms. The methods for the optimization of furniture arrangement based on evolutionary computing were proposed in [Akase and Okada 2013; Sanchez et al. 2003]. Similarly to these methods, our method also utilizes evolutionary computing, however, in contrast to them, it generates the final arrangement automatically without user assistance.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of outputting the interior layout automation information includes the steps of: performing an interior rendering process on the indoor structure information based on the interior layout automation information; and outputting the rendered indoor structure information through an indoor space interface. (Kan. Figure 1 showing the rendered indoor environment)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of generating interior layout automation information includes the step of receiving style-related information corresponding to the user. (Kan. Page 2, left column, 3rd paragraph, “Material selection plays an important role in interior design. The selected materials of furniture objects should be consistent across the room and they should form a harmonious color configuration conforming to a specific style.”)
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the style information analysis process includes a process of generating a feature variable for generating an interior cost function based on the style information of the user. (Kan. Page 2, Section 2, 4th paragraph, “Optimization-based methods generate realistic furniture arrangements by optimizing a cost function. Typically, this cost function includes ergonomic, aesthetic and functional terms. The methods for the optimization of furniture arrangement based on evolutionary computing were proposed in [Akase and Okada 2013; Sanchez et al. 2003]. Similarly to these methods, our method also utilizes evolutionary computing, however, in contrast to them, it generates the final arrangement automatically without user assistance.”)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The method according to claim 6, wherein the feature variable is determined according to a type, arrangement, (Kan. Page 5, left column, 2nd paragraph, “all defined equations and division by zero is avoided. Group Relationships. The furniture objects in interior design can be grouped based on their function and type. Often a group of objects has their parent (e.g. the chairs are located around the table). The spatial organization within a group conforms to the specific requirements.”) and function weight of interior furniture. (Kan. Page 6, left column, 5th paragraph, “The defined design guidelines play an important role in the optimization of furniture layout. In our experiments we set the weights for all guidelines to 1.0 except circulation with weight 1.1 and proportion with weight 2.5. The weight for proportion was increased because this guideline is essential for inserting objects to the scene.”)
Regarding Claim 8: The reference discloses The method according to claim 7, wherein the feature variable includes normalized distance information with respect to a space layout element corresponding to the interior furniture, and the space layout element includes at least one among a wall, a corner, a door, a window, or a neighboring extra space. (Kan. Page 5, right column, equation 7 as an example of distance to wall and equations 8 and 9 as distance with normalization)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the style information analysis process includes a process of generating a space modification variable for modifying an interior cost function for a space layout design based on the style information of the user, and the modification variable is determined according to space type information. (Kan. Page 7, left column, Section 4, last paragraph, steps 1-5. Page 9, right column, Section 6, 2nd paragraph, “Based on the varying significance values and trends in user preference, we can hypothesize that the quality of the generated interior design depends on the type of the room. Our algorithm performed very well in the kitchen scene while it was not preferred by participants
in the bedroom scene.”)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of generating interior layout automation information includes the step of performing, according to a relationship learning process of weight values applied to an interior cost function and a space layout design function determined according to the style information analysis process in correspondence to the indoor structure information, an iteration process of generating optimal interior layout automation information by repeatedly generating arbitrary interior layouts. (Kan. Page 7, left column, Section 4, last paragraph, steps 1-5, recited as “iteration of the optimization.”)
Regarding Claim 11: The reference discloses The method according to claim 10, wherein the step of generating interior layout automation information includes the step of terminating the iteration and outputting current interior layout automation information, when the interior layout automation information currently generated according to the iteration process is within a preset threshold space use rate. (Kan. Page 6, left column, 3rd paragraph, “Proportion. The furniture objects should have appropriate pro portions to the specific room and to each other. Additionally, if there is too much of empty space in a room, new objects should be generated”)
Regarding Claim 12: The reference discloses An interior layout apparatus comprising: a control unit acquiring indoor structure information of a user according to a user input; a style information analysis unit performing a style information analysis process corresponding to the user; a layout generation processing unit generating, according to the style information analysis process, interior layout automation information including a space layout and an interior arrangement design determined in correspondence to the indoor structure information; and an output unit outputting the interior layout automation information. (See rejection for claim 1)
Regarding Claim 13: The reference discloses The apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the output unit performs an interior rendering process on the indoor structure information based on the interior layout automation information, and outputs the rendered indoor structure information through an indoor space interface. (See rejection for claim 2)
Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses The apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising an input unit receiving style-related information corresponding to the user. (See rejection for claim 3)
Regarding Claim 16: The reference discloses The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the style information analysis process includes a process of generating a feature variable for generating an interior cost function based on the style information of the user. (See rejection for claim 6)
Regarding Claim 17: The reference discloses The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the feature variable is determined according to a type, arrangement, and function weight of interior furniture, and the feature variable includes normalized distance information with respect to a space layout element corresponding to the interior furniture, and the space layout element includes at least one among a wall, a corner, a door, a window, or a neighboring extra space. (See rejection for claims 7 and 8)
Regarding Claim 18: The reference discloses The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the style information analysis process includes a process of generating a space modification variable for generating a space layout design function that modifies an interior cost function based on the style information of the user, and the modification variable is determined according to space type information. (See rejection for claim 9)
Regarding Claim 19: The reference discloses The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the layout generation processing unit performs, according to a relationship learning process of weight values applied to an interior cost function and a space layout design function determined according to the style information analysis process in correspondence to the indoor structure information, an iteration process of generating optimal interior layout automation information by repeatedly generating arbitrary interior layouts. (See rejection for claim 10)
Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the layout generation processing unit terminates the iteration and outputs current interior layout automation information, when the interior layout automation information currently generated according to the iteration process is within a preset threshold space use rate. (See rejection for claim 11)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
10. Claim(s) 4-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan in view of Siltanen, Sanni. "Diminished reality for augmented reality interior design." The Visual Computer 33.2 (2017): 193-208, hereafter Siltanen.
Regarding Claim 4: Kan does not explicitly recite The method according to claim 3, wherein the style- related information includes interior video information acquired according to a user input.
However Siltanen discloses The method according to claim 3, wherein the style- related information includes interior video information acquired according to a user input. (Page 193, Section 1, 1st paragraph, “Augmented reality (AR) is a real-time interactive visualization approach in which virtual objects are added to the real environment, typically on top of video, using computer graphics.” See also 3rd paragraph, “In addition to adding objects, it is logical to consider virtually removing real objects as well. This approach, diminished reality, uses a combination of image processing and computer vision techniques to remove existing objects from the scene in real time. An object is delineated from a video frame and an approximation of the scene behind it is rendered on top of the object to make it disappear.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize video as per Siltanen for the interior design input as Kan since “An object is delineated from a video frame and an approximation of the scene behind it is rendered on top of the object to make it disappear. This can solve, for example, the problem with existing furniture in interior design.”
Regarding Claim 5: Kan does not explicitly recite The method according to claim 4, wherein the step of generating interior layout automation information includes the step of acquiring style information of the user by performing a style information analysis corresponding to the interior video information.
However Siltanen discloses The method according to claim 4, wherein the step of generating interior layout automation information includes the step of acquiring style information of the user by performing a style information analysis corresponding to the interior video information. (Siltanen. Page 203, Section 4.3, “In interior design applications, users often wish for the ability to change things: try different colors and materials [25]. In the augmented reality context, this kind of ability is called modulated reality [20]. We demonstrate a simple modulated reality functionality: changing the color of a couch.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize style and video information as per Siltanen for the interior design input as Kan since “users often wish for the ability to change things: try different colors and materials [25]... demonstrate a simple modulated reality functionality: changing the color of a couch.”
Regarding Claim 15: The reference discloses The apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the style information analysis unit acquires style information of the user by performing a style information analysis corresponding to the interior video information. (See rejection for claim 5)
Conclusion
11. All Claims are rejected.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Yu, Lap-Fai, et al. "Make it home: Automatic optimization of furniture arrangement." ACM Trans. Graph. 30.4 (2011): 86.
ii) Kán, Peter, and Hannes Kaufmann. "Automatic furniture arrangement using greedy cost minimization." 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 2018.
iii) Furukawa, Yasutaka, et al. "Reconstructing building interiors from images." 2009 IEEE 12th international conference on computer vision. IEEE, 2009.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights