DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 2/12/2023. Claims 1-2, 5-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 12/10/2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 102019008689.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites an equation and variables which are extremely blurry and difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0277663 A1 (“Gupta”).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Gupta teaches:
A method for providing at least one cutting pattern of a garment to be made individually for a customer (Gupta: Abstract), comprising the steps of:
creating a virtual individual 3D body model of the customer based on individually determined 3D body shell data of the customer and provided general skeletal data (Gupta: para [0013], “(a) a scanner configured for obtaining a scan comprising a three-dimensional model of a customer's body shape”);
creating a virtual individual 3D garment based on a virtual 3D ideal design and the created virtual individual 3D body model (Gupta: para [0029], “(a) a three-dimensional digital geometry of the pattern”; para [0053] “(c) adapting the selected design to the customer's body measurements to obtain a customized design”, para [0054], “(d) incorporating customer
style and fit preferences in the customized design to obtain a personalized custom-fit design”); and
creating the at least one cutting pattern by flattening/developing the virtual individual 3D garment (Gupta: para [0029], “(a) a three-dimensional digital geometry of the pattern”; para [0030], “(b) a corresponding two-dimensional digital projection of the design”; para [0131], “a customer's body scan will result in a three-dimensional point cloud which can be converted into a digital representation that is augmented with data provided by the manufacturer or designer, and as modified by a customer's customizations, to result in two-dimensional representation of a pattern representing the pattern pieces to be cut from the fabric and sewn to manufacture the garment”),
wherein flattening/developing the virtual individual 3D garment comprises, in this order,
generating one or more possible cuts on the basis of a first set of cutting rules (Gupta: para [0022], “(b) customization algorithms for enabling a customer to select and incorporate fit and style preferences into the digital pattern”),
generating one or more possible cuts on the basis of a second set of cutting rules (Gupta: para [0023], “(c) visualization algorithms for rapidly visualizing the drape and fit of the digital garment design pattern around a digital representation of the customer's body shape”), and
generating one or more possible cuts on the basis of an automated flattening/development algorithm (Gupta: para [0030], “(b) a corresponding two-dimensional digital projection of the design”; para [0131], “Once the customer has selected the desired customizations, the algorithms will convert the digital representation into a two-dimensional pattern file, which may optionally comprise garment sewing instructions and control instructions for the manufacturing and material handling equipment”),
the first set of cutting rules taking into account specified style elements of the garment (Gupta: para [0022], “(b) customization algorithms for enabling a customer to select and incorporate fit and style preferences into the digital pattern”) and the second set of cutting rules taking into account specified effect elements of the garment (Gupta: para [0023], “(c) visualization algorithms for rapidly visualizing the drape and fit of the digital garment design pattern around a digital representation of the customer's body shape”).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein creating a virtual individual 3D body model further takes place on the basis of provided general 3D body shell data (Gupta: para [0035], “a three-dimensional point cloud obtained from the customer's body scan”; para [0131], “In accordance with the invention, a customer's body scan will result in a three-dimensional point cloud which can be converted into a digital representation”; para [0127], “Once the body scan is complete, the customer's profile 15 is created. The profile can include any kind of information that the manufacturer or store may wish to contain, such as customer preferences, three-dimensional digital model of body shape and history thereof …The customer profile can be used prepare a three-dimensional digital self 22 of the customer”).
Regarding claim 5, Gupta teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein generating one or more possible cuts takes place on the basis of an automated flattening/development algorithm using a merit/target function to be minimized (Gupta: para [0027], “nesting algorithms configured for minimizing fabric waste by optimizing arrangement of pattern pieces on the fabric prior to cutting the
pattern pieces from the fabric”; para [0089], “auto-nesting software for each and every custom pattern to determine the optimal arrangement of digital pattern pieces on fabric for subsequent cutting and thereby minimizes fabric waste while preserving flexibility”).
Regarding claim 8, Gupta teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein creating a virtual individual 3D garment takes place on the basis of user specifications and in particular a selection from a predetermined clothing catalog, a predetermined style element catalog, a predetermined effect element catalog (Gupta: para [0034], “The finishes and hardware can be any kind of processes or items which are applied to the garment, for example, decoration or fastening. A non-limiting list of finishes may include specialty washes such as stone- or acid-washing, distress- or wear-patterns, and specialty fabric dyes. A non-limiting list of hardware may include rivets, buttons, zippers, snaps, hooks, hook-and-loop fasteners, elastic bands, stitch styles and spacings, custom labels, and embroidery”) and/or a predetermined material catalog.
Regarding claim 11, Gupta teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one final virtual individual 3D garment is created and displayed on the basis of the at least one created cutting pattern (Gupta: para [0045], “The visualization algorithms are used to visualize the customer's requested design and preferences and to display the personalized custom-fit design to the customer”).
Regarding claim 12, Gupta teaches:
The method according to claim 1 further comprising:
determining at least one linear measurement (Gupta: para[0051], “(a) obtaining three-dimensional body measurements of a customer using a non-contact whole-body scanner”) and/or at least one body circumference of the customer on the basis of the determined individual 3D body shell data.
Regarding claim 17, Gupta teaches:
A computer program product comprising computer- readable instructions which, when loaded into a memory of a computer and executed by the computer, cause the computer to perform a method according to claim 1 (Gupta: Fig. 8).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140277663 A1 (“Gupta”) in view of Variational Surface Cutting (“Sharp”).
Regarding claim 6, Gupta does not teach but Sharp does teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein flattening/developing the virtual custom 3D garment comprises minimizing a merit/target function (Abstract, “This paper develops a global variational approach to cutting curved surfaces so that they can be flattened into the plane with low metric distortion.”), and wherein the merit/target function comprises a distortion energy term and/or a length regularization energy term and/or a strain energy term (Sharp: 6.3 Length Regularization; 3.2 Dirichlet Distortion Energy; page 5, “this energy corresponds to the true strain or Hencky strain”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gupta (directed to custom garment modeling) and Sharp (directed to flattening surfaces) and arrived at custom garment modeling with flattening surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “make cuts in the surface, much as a designer might accommodate curvature by incorporating seams into a pattern for a garment” (Sharp: Introduction).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140277663 A1 (“Gupta”) in view of US 20190008226 A1 (“Krivonosova”).
Regarding claim 13, Gupta does not teach but Krivonosova does teach:
The method of claim 12, further comprising:
comparing the at least one linear measurement and/or body circumference of the customer on the basis of the determined individual 3D body shell data with at least one standard cutting pattern and/or with at least one predetermined measurement chart (Krivonosova: Abstract, “a pattern of the garment is rendered on the basis of said fiducial point coordinates; markings, incisions, fiducial lines and written comments are applied; the fiducial points and the pattern of the garment are reexamined for the intersection of elements of the garment and to check that the lengths of matching seams or details of the garment coincide; a check of the fit of the garment is performed on the mannequin; the rendering of the pattern is checked across a broad range of sizes; and the pattern is exported to a machine-readable format for one or more sizes. The result is a more accurate match between the garment designed and the body shape of a user of the system”; para [0013], “validating the entered common measurements by comparing the entered values with the database of reference measurements”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gupta (directed to custom garment modeling) and Krivonosova (directed to comparing to standard measurements) and arrived at custom garment modeling with comparing to standard measurements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for “interactive design systems, in particular an apparel design system used to create patterns for tailoring garments, and a method for exchanging the created patterns between the users of the said system” (Krivonosova: para [0001]).
Claims 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140277663 A1 (“Gupta”) in view of US 20170351246 A1 (“Colaianni”).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Gupta does not teach but Colaianni does teach:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
storing the created virtual individual 3D body model of the customer in an avatar comparison database, the avatar comparison database providing a large number of virtual individual 3D body models from different customers in order to compare or match these provided virtual individual 3D body models with one another (Colaianni: para [0173], “At step 240, the avatar may be selected or created automatically without intervention of the user, or the user may be able to select an avatar. The avatar may be an avatar of the user as in step 241, for example, based the body data of the user, or may be a pre-stored or “default” avatar as in step 242, or it may also be pre-stored avatar selected within a plurality of available pre-stored avatars, based on some characteristics of the user, such as some body data. Therefore, although step 212 may be performed before step 210 in some embodiments, it may be beneficial to perform step 212 after step 210 as shown on FIG. 2A. Indeed, the body data of the user can then be used to obtain an avatar representative of the user. Using an avatar based on the body data of the user can also improve the preview of the piece of apparel while creating and/or selecting the pattern. The pattern may be represented on a virtual piece of apparel having the customized size created for the user, and may be presented as being worn by an avatar the size of the user. The benefits of such processes have also been described above in relation to FIG. 1”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gupta (directed to custom garment modeling) and Colaianni (directed to comparing virtual avatars) and arrived at custom garment modeling with comparing virtual avatars. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “provide a more flexible method and system for manufacturing a piece of apparel to improve the physical or virtual design process of the apparel. It is a further object of the present invention to individualize the design and manufacturing process for a piece of apparel and to speed up the entire design and manufacturing process, together with producing high-quality products” (Colaianni: para [0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Gupta does not teach but Colaianni does teach:
The method of claim 14, further comprising:
comparing the created virtual individual 3D body model of the customer to other virtual custom 3D body models provided by the avatar comparison database (Colaianni: para [0173], “At step 240, the avatar may be selected or created automatically without intervention of the user, or the user may be able to select an avatar. The avatar may be an avatar of the user as in step 241, for example, based the body data of the user, or may be a pre-stored or “default” avatar as in step 242, or it may also be pre-stored avatar selected within a plurality of available pre-stored avatars, based on some characteristics of the user, such as some body data. Therefore, although step 212 may be performed before step 210 in some embodiments, it may be beneficial to perform step 212 after step 210 as shown on FIG. 2A. Indeed, the body data of the user can then be used to obtain an avatar representative of the user. Using an avatar based on the body data of the user can also improve the preview of the piece of apparel while creating and/or selecting the pattern. The pattern may be represented on a virtual piece of apparel having the customized size created for the user, and may be presented as being worn by an avatar the size of the user. The benefits of such processes have also been described above in relation to FIG. 1”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gupta (directed to custom garment modeling) and Colaianni (directed to comparing virtual avatars) and arrived at custom garment modeling with comparing virtual avatars. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “provide a more flexible method and system for manufacturing a piece of apparel to improve the physical or virtual design process of the apparel. It is a further object of the present invention to individualize the design and manufacturing process for a piece of apparel and to speed up the entire design and manufacturing process, together with producing high-quality products” (Colaianni: para [0011]).
Regarding claim 20, Gupta does not teach but Colaianni does teach:
The device according to claim 19, further comprising: an avatar matching device for configured to compare the created virtual individual 3D body model of the customer with other virtual individual 3D body models provided by the avatar comparison database (Colaianni: para [0173], “At step 240, the avatar may be selected or created automatically without intervention of the user, or the user may be able to select an avatar. The avatar may be an avatar of the user as in step 241, for example, based the body data of the user, or may be a pre-stored or “default” avatar as in step 242, or it may also be pre-stored avatar selected within a plurality of available pre-stored avatars, based on some characteristics of the user, such as some body data. Therefore, although step 212 may be performed before step 210 in some embodiments, it may be beneficial to perform step 212 after step 210 as shown on FIG. 2A. Indeed, the body data of the user can then be used to obtain an avatar representative of the user. Using an avatar based on the body data of the user can also improve the preview of the piece of apparel while creating and/or selecting the pattern. The pattern may be represented on a virtual piece of apparel having the customized size created for the user, and may be presented as being worn by an avatar the size of the user. The benefits of such processes have also been described above in relation to FIG. 1”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gupta (directed to custom garment modeling) and Colaianni (directed to comparing virtual avatars) and arrived at custom garment modeling with comparing virtual avatars. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to “provide a more flexible method and system for manufacturing a piece of apparel to improve the physical or virtual design process of the apparel. It is a further object of the present invention to individualize the design and manufacturing process for a piece of apparel and to speed up the entire design and manufacturing process, together with producing high-quality products” (Colaianni: para [0011]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-10, and 16 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 112 are overcome.
The independent claims will be in condition for allowance when the allowable dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims, in addition to overcoming the 112 rejections.
Gupta, Sharp, Krivonosova and Colaianni teach a method for generating cutting patterns for a custom garment using a 3D body model.
However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claim 7)
“wherein the merit/target function is defined by the equation E(p) = α ED(p) + β EL(p) + ϒ Es(p), where ED(p) represents the distortion energy term, EL(p)the length regularization energy term, Es(p) the strain energy term, and α,β,ϒ> 0 represent weight factors associated with the respective energy terms”,
(claim 9)
“enlarging a volume of the virtual individual 3D body model to form an enlarged virtual individual 3D body model depending on the type of clothing and/or depending on a selected material and/or depending on a simulated movement of the virtual individual 3D body model”,
(claim 16)
“assigning the created virtual individual 3D body model of the customer to at least one avatar group from a large number of predefined avatar groups”
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights