DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statements (8 documents) were received on 08/08/2022 and have been considered by the examiner. An additional IDS document was received on 08/10/2022 and has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 15, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 8, “from a two” should read “from two”.
Claim 1, Line 11, “pattern with a” should read “pattern with an”.
Claim 2, Line 2, “at a online store” should read “at an online store”.
Claim 7, Line 1, “method or claim 6” should read “method of claim 6”.
Claim 15, Line 11, “pattern with a” should read “pattern with an”.
Claim 15, Line 38, “at a online store” should read “at an online store”.
Claim 22, Line 3 “with a image” should read “with an image”.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is encouraged to closely review the claims for any additional grammatical errors that may not have been identified by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Grammatical errors mirroring those recited in the claim objections above were noted within the specification. Proposed corrections provided for the claim language is applicable to the specification.
¶171 of the specification recites “using a 8-bit or greater” which should read “using an 8-bit or greater”.
¶ 244 recites “In am implementation” which should read “In an implementation”.
¶248 recites “is a pare of jeans” which should read “is a pair of jeans”.
¶288 recites “pair or pants” which should read “pair of pants”.
¶383 recites “in a on-body” which should read “in an on-body”.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is likewise encouraged to closely review the specification for any additional grammatical errors that may not have been identified by the examiner.
The use of trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Some references have included the appropriate symbol indicating use. However, see at least ¶140, 144, 152, 156, 158, 162, 222, 324 for terms which appear to be without the proper indicators. Applicant is encouraged to review the specification for any other instances where a trade mark or trade name is used without proper indicators.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 1-23 are 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 1, Lines 5-6 “the selected garment template” lacks antecedent basis. When read in light of the specification, ¶368, it appears that a garment template corresponds to a base template. Previously, in line 4, a garment base was introduced but a template was not. There is a missing correspondence set forth between the selected garment base and the selected garment template. The claim references “the selected garment template” in multiple instances which lack antecedent basis under the same rationale (Lines 9, 12, 14, and 21).
Claim 1, Line 7, “a finishing pattern” had already been introduced previously in Line 3. It is unclear if the elements are distinct from one another or refer to the same item. For purposes of this examination, the elements have been interpreted as referring to the same item and therefore “a finishing pattern” should read “the finishing pattern” in Line 7.
Claim 1, Line 11, “combining a digital input file”. It is unclear if this element is distinct from the previously recited “a digital input file” on line 10. For purposes of this examination, Examiner has interpreted the elements to be referring to the same thing and therefore Line 11 has been read to read “combining the digital input file”.
The dependent claims 2-14 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2, Line 1, “wherein a customer can order” is indefinite because it is not ascertainable as to whether or not an order occurs or does not occur as part of the methodology.
Claim 15 mirrors the deficiencies noted in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15, Line 38 ,“wherein a customer can order” is indefinite because it is not ascertainable as to whether or not an order occurs or does not occur as part of the methodology.
The dependent claims 16-20 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 15 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21, Line 8 recites “the first apparel design” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 21, Line 10, recites “a screen”. It is unclear if “a screen” is referring to the same element recited previously in line 4 for “a computer screen”. For purposes of this examination, the elements have been interpreted as the same.
Claim 21, Lines 12-13, recites “the first three-dimensional model” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 21, Lines 16-17, recites “the second three-dimensional model” which lacks antecedent basis.
Dependent claims 22-23 incorporate the deficiencies of Claim 21 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22, Line 2, recites “a digital input file”. It is unclear if the element is referring to the same file as recited in Claim 21 or if the element is distinct. For purposes of the examination, the elements have been identified as referring to the same thing.
Claim 23 incorporates the deficiencies of claim 22.
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-14 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
as customized by a user- This task can reasonably be read to entail customizing a design, which can be performed practically in the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
providing an option for the user to select a garment base and upon the user’s selection. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing available finishing patterns and making a judgement to select an option. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
providing an option for the user to select a finishing pattern from a two or more finishing patterns and upon the user’s selection. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing available finishing patterns and making a judgement to select an option. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
combining a digital input file associated with the selected finishing pattern with a image of the selected garment template to generate a combined image, wherein the combined image is generated by. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail combining data from two files to generate a combined image. A human can practically perform this process using the mind and a pen and paper as assistive physical aids by evaluating data and drawing from the observations to create a paper image. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The recitation of a digital file does not exempt the claim from being interpreted as mental process because the courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed using a computer and not.
generating an adjusted base image from the image of the selected garment template without the selected finishing pattern, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the selected garment template image to inform the creation of a modified image. A human can practically perform this task in the human mind while using assistive physical aids such as pen and paper so as to generate an image. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating a pattern mask based on the digital input file associated with the selected finishing pattern. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the digital input file and using the information to create a judgement as to how to draw a corresponding pattern mask. A human being can make an observation and draw a pattern mask according to the observations using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
for a pixel at a pixel location of the combined image, obtaining a first contribution for the pixel location of the combined image by combining a first value for a pixel corresponding to the pixel location for the pattern mask and a pixel corresponding to the pixel location for the image of the selected garment template without the selected finishing pattern, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing pixel values for two images and combining them based on an evaluation of the values to create a final contributing value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the combination of values, this has been interpreted as a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations as an additional abstract idea.
for the pixel at the pixel location of the combined image, obtaining a second contribution at the pixel location for the combined image by combining a second value for a pixel corresponding to the pixel location for the pattern mask and a pixel corresponding to the pixel location for the adjusted base image, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing pixel values for two images and combining them based on the evaluation of the values to create a final contributing value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the combination of values, this has been interpreted as a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations as an additional abstract idea.
combining the first contribution and second contribution to obtain a color value for a pixel at the pixel location for the second preview image, and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail combining first and second contributions so as to generate a color value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. When read in light of the specification, a color value is a number (¶351). Accordingly, the combination of numbers to create another number is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
performing a texture mapping of the combined image onto a first three-dimensional model to obtain a first texture-mapped model; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail determining a relationship between a texture and a model so as to create a textured model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by drawing. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
performing a texture mapping of the combined image onto a second three-dimensional model to obtain a second texture-mapped model, wherein the second three-dimensional model is different from the first three-dimensional model; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail determining a relationship between a texture and a model so as to create a textured model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by drawing. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating a plurality of two-dimensional first images from the first texture-mapped model; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the texture mapped model in order to inform the creation of a two dimensional image. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing a picture. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating a plurality of two-dimensional second images from the second texture-mapped model. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the texture mapped model in order to inform the creation of a two dimensional image. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing a picture. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
that shows a preview image of a garment design on a screen … with a finishing pattern- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because it merely invokes the use of computers as a tool to perform the existing process.
in the garment design tool, …, showing in the screen a first preview image of the selected garment template;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because it merely invokes the use of computers as a tool to perform the existing process.
wherein each finishing pattern is associated with a digital input file;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for describing the technological environment by which the mental process is executed.
using the color value for the pixel at the pixel location in the combined image;;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for generally amounting to the words “apply it” with regard to the value obtained as part of the mental process.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore no further evaluation is required to determine if the elements are beyond well understood routine and conventional activity. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, generically reciting “apply it” with regard to the mental process, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-20 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
as customized by a user- This task can reasonably be read to entail customizing a design, which can be performed practically in the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
providing an option for the user to select a garment base and upon the user’s selection. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing available finishing patterns and making a judgement to select an option. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
providing an option for the user to select a finishing pattern from a two or more finishing patterns and upon the user’s selection. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing available finishing patterns and making a judgement to select an option. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
combining a digital input file associated with the selected finishing pattern with a image of the selected garment template to generate a combined image, wherein the combined image is generated by. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail combining data from two files to generate a combined image. A human can practically perform this process using the mind and a pen and paper as assistive physical aids by evaluating data and drawing from the observations to create a paper image. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The recitation of a digital file does not exempt the claim from being interpreted as mental process because the courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed using a computer and not.
generating an adjusted base image from the image of the selected garment template without the selected finishing pattern, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the selected garment template image to inform the creation of a modified image. A human can practically perform this task in the human mind while using assistive physical aids such as pen and paper so as to generate an image. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating a pattern mask based on the digital input file associated with the selected finishing pattern. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the digital input file and using the information to create a judgement as to how to draw a corresponding pattern mask. A human being can make an observation and draw a pattern mask according to the observations using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
for a pixel at a pixel location of the combined image, obtaining a first contribution for the pixel location of the combined image by combining a first value for a pixel corresponding to the pixel location for the pattern mask and a pixel corresponding to the pixel location for the image of the selected garment template without the selected finishing pattern, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing pixel values for two images and combining them based on an evaluation of the values to create a final contributing value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the combination of values, this has been interpreted as a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations as an additional abstract idea.
for the pixel at the pixel location of the combined image, obtaining a second contribution at the pixel location for the combined image by combining a second value for a pixel corresponding to the pixel location for the pattern mask and a pixel corresponding to the pixel location for the adjusted base image, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing pixel values for two images and combining them based on the evaluation of the values to create a final contributing value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the combination of values, this has been interpreted as a mathematical concept of mathematical calculations as an additional abstract idea.
combining the first contribution and second contribution to obtain a color value for a pixel at the pixel location for the second preview image, and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail combining first and second contributions so as to generate a color value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. When read in light of the specification, a color value is a number (¶351). Accordingly, the combination of numbers to create another number is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
performing a texture mapping of the combined image onto a first three-dimensional model to obtain a first texture-mapped model; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail determining a relationship between a texture and a model so as to create a textured model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by drawing. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
performing a texture mapping of the combined image onto a second three-dimensional model to obtain a second texture-mapped model, wherein the second three-dimensional model is different from the first three-dimensional model; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail determining a relationship between a texture and a model so as to create a textured model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by drawing. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating a plurality of two-dimensional first images from the first texture-mapped model; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the texture mapped model in order to inform the creation of a two dimensional image. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing a picture. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generating a plurality of two-dimensional second images from the second texture-mapped model. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the texture mapped model in order to inform the creation of a two dimensional image. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by drawing a picture. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
wherein a customer can order a product of the garment design …based on the two-dimensional first images before manufacture of the product; This claim limitation can reasonably be read to entail observing images in order to form a judgement and selection for items to be ordered. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, this claim recites the organization of human activity of sales activities and behaviors. Accordingly, this claim has also been identified to recite the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity.
based on the second images, creating a process for manufacturing the product; and This claim can be reasonably read to entail determining the process to manufacture an item based on the evaluation and observation of images. This process can be created as a sequence of steps which can be defined in the human mind and can be output as a series of instructions by using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
after the product has been ordered by the customer – This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail a customer performing a product order. This is the recitation of the organization of human activity for sales activities. Accordingly, this claim recites the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a method of organizing human activity.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
providing a garment design tool that shows a preview image of a garment design on a screen …with a finishing pattern- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers to perform an abstract idea.
in the garment design tool… showing in the screen a first preview image of the selected garment template;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers to perform an abstract idea
in the garment design tool showing on the screen a second preview image of the selected garment template with the selected finishing pattern- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers to perform an abstract idea
wherein each finishing pattern is associated with a digital input file;- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
using the color value for the pixel at the pixel location in the combined image; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for generically reciting “Apply it” with regard to the value obtained as part of a mental process
presenting the two-dimensional first images at a online site- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting
from the online site - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers for executing an abstract idea
at a manufacturing facility, - This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment and field of use
making the product using the process for manufacturing the product., - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to a generical recitation of “apply it” with regard for the information obtained as part of the mental process.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
presenting the two-dimensional first images at a online site – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data outputting, as stated previously. When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonably interpretation, the limitation includes transmitting data over a network. Transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 21:
Step 1: Claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-23 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 21 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
generating at least a … file including a finishing pattern, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail creating a file with a finishing pattern which can be done practically in the human mind by using a pen and paper as assistive physical aids to draw. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generates a three-dimensional photorealistic visualization of a finishing pattern of a garment on … and allows editing of the finishing pattern, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail generating a 3d photorealistic visualization of a finishing pattern on a garment wherein changes can be made for the visualization. This can be done using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
the editing … comprises selecting a first combination of a garment template and a first finishing pattern from plurality of finishing patterns, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating options for a garment include a template and a finishing pattern. This observation and judgment can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
a three-dimensional photorealistic visualization of the first apparel design comprises displaying … a three-dimensional model with textures of the first apparel design; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing a photorealistic visualization of a three dimensional model with textures. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
a first three-dimensional model with textures of the first apparel design obtained by performing a texture mapping of the first apparel design onto the first three-dimensional model; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing a texture mapping between a design and model, wherein a human being is capable of generating this correspondence in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
a second three-dimensional model with textures of the first apparel design obtained by performing a texture mapping of the first apparel design onto the second three-dimensional model, wherein the second three-dimensional model is different from the first three-dimensional model; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing a texture mapping between a design and model, wherein a human being is capable of generating this correspondence in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
a plurality of two-dimensional first images generated from the first three-dimensional model with textures of the first apparel design; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a three dimensional model so as to inform the generation of two dimensional images. A human is capable of generating images based on the observations of a model using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
a plurality of two-dimensional second images generated from the second three-dimensional model with textures of the first apparel design. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a three dimensional model so as to inform the generation of two dimensional images. A human is capable of generating images based on the observations of a model using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a digital design tool, … a digital input …, wherein the digital design tool … computer screen … - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
… permitted by the digital design tool … - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
and saving the first combination as the first apparel design, and - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
… on a screen … - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
and saving the first combination as the first apparel design, and – This limitation has been identified as insignificant extra solution activity, post-activity solution. When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation entails storing information in memory, which has been recognized by the courts as a well understood, routine, and conventional computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein a customer can order a product of the garment design … based on the two-dimensional first images before manufacture of the product, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the images to determine how to place an order for a garment. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. This claim limitation further recites sales activity which is a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim further recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation presenting the two-dimensional first images. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the claim recites at a online site… from the online site which have been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception and invoking the use of a computer to perform a mental process does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because the claim recited an element that was considered insignificant extra solution activity, the claim requires further evaluation to determine if the activity is beyond well understood routine and conventional activity. When read in light of the specification and under broadest reasonable interpretation, presenting the two dimensional first images entails transmitting data over a network. The courts have found that transmitting data over a network, when claimed in a generic manner, is a computer function that is well understood routine and conventional activity. The courts have found that limitations that amount to appending well understood, routine, and conventional activity as well as invoking the use of generic computers to perform a process are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation based on the second images, creating a process for manufacturing the product; and, which can reasonably be read to entail observing the second images and creating a process by which to manufacture product. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by a human being creating a sequence of instructions by which to manufacture a product and writing down said instructions. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The claim further recites after the product has been ordered by the customer which can reasonably be read to entail performing a sales activity. This activity is considered the recitation of a method of organizing human activities and behaviors as an additional judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation at a manufacturing facility, This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, the claim recites making the product using the process for manufacturing the product. This element has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to generically “apply it” with regard to the information obtained as part of a mental process. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use, as well as merely reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a parti