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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 19, 2025; December 10, 2025; January 2, 2026; and January 28, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 3, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 11, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to the abstract of the disclosure have been considered, but they are not persuasive. 37 C.F.R. 1.72 recites that “[t]he abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length.” MPEP § 608.01(b) further states that “[a]bstracts exceeding 15 lines of text or 150 words should be checked to see that they are as concise as the disclosure permits.” While an abstract that is more than 150 words in length may satisfy the regulation, the instant abstract is not as concise as the disclosure permits. The instant abstract merely reproduces the language of instant Claim 1; thus, the instant abstract does not enable the public to generally determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The objection to the abstract is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes that Applicant references paragraph [0365] in the instant specification as providing support, however support is instead found in paragraph [0367] and [0681].
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its undue length of 207 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaver, III et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0060801 A1), hereinafter Beaver, in view of Banker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0016054 A1), hereinafter Banker, further in view of Savage et al. (Savage, Valkyrie, Sean Follmer, Jingyi Li, and Björn Hartmann. "Makers' marks: Physical markup for designing and fabricating functional objects." In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, pp. 103-108. 2015.), hereinafter Savage.
Regarding Claim 1, Beaver teaches A method for creating a custom product with a multiplicity of parameters encoded in product manufacturing instructions (“In an embodiment, attribute engine 108 is configured with logic that supports a specified syntax that can flexibly describe product characteristics and their constraints.”) (e.g., paragraph [0042]).
the method comprising: representing each parameter, of a plurality of parameters of a custom product, as a key- value pair (“In an embodiment, the specified syntax supported by attribute engine 108 is a key-value syntax that allows products characteristics and constraints to be described as a set of keys and values.”) (e.g., paragraph [0043]).
generating a plurality of classified key-values by classifying each key in the key-value pair based on its contribution to a manufactured appearance of the custom product to a group of a plurality of groups (“For example, in the case of a custom printed or manufactured shirt, the product may be described using keys including, without limitation, style, color, and size attributes.” Style, color, and size are interpreted as key-value classes, wherein a style, color, and size contribute to an appearance in different ways.) (e.g., paragraph [0043]).
determining values, based on the plurality of classified key-values, for each parameter, of the plurality of parameters, for producing a physical product with a marked visual difference for that parameter (“In an embodiment, an expression may describe a product attribute as a computed value […] In step 212, one or more attribute values are received that define a custom product.” Computing a value and receiving a value are interpreted as determining values.) (e.g., paragraphs [0056] and [0087]).
causing to produce the physical product based on the plurality of parameters using the plurality of classified key-values (“In an embodiment, the user is shown a synthetically constructed image of the product that the user is configuring for manufacturing.” Showing an image of the product to a user who will manufacture the product is interpreted as causing the product to be produced.) (e.g., paragraph [0129]).
constructing, based on the one or more regions, a graphical representation of the physical product (“The rendering engine renders an image representative of the custom product.”) (e.g., paragraph [0135]).
wherein at least one of the plurality of classified key-values causes the visual differences in the one or more regions (“Furthermore, the attribute values selected by the user may affect what accessory products are recommended and how a representative image of the custom product is rendered.” Attributes affecting what products are recommended and how an image of the product is rendered is interpreted as attributes causing a visual difference in one or more regions of a product.) (e.g., paragraph [0087]).
However, Beaver does not appear to specifically teach detecting, using an imaging approach, one or more regions of visual differences between the physical product and the custom product […] correlating an appearance of the custom product, having the plurality of parameters, with the graphical representation of the physical product, having corresponding parameters; and correcting, based on the appearance, the visual differences between the physical product and the custom product and using the graphical representation of the physical product.
On the other hand, Banker, which relates to correcting errors between a physical and scanned print, does teach detecting, using an imaging approach, one or more regions of visual differences between the physical product and the custom product (“Referring to FIG. 2, test image 16 includes target objects designed to reveal specific imaging characteristics of digital printer 14 [...] Approximately the lower third of printed image 16 contains target objects 16a-f that are analyzed without human intervention. Target objects 16a-f are test patterns designed to indicate image defects and are analyzed to evaluate print image characteristics.” Analyzing target objects to identify image defects is interpreted as detecting one or more regions of visual differences, wherein the printed image may be the physical product and the test images may be the custom product.) (e.g., paragraph [0024]).
and correcting, based on the appearance, the visual differences between the physical product and the custom product and using the graphical representation of the physical product (“Accounting for three landmarks, rather than only two, allows linear variations in the X and Y directions of scanner 18 to be corrected. Print image analyzer 22 measures the distances between landmarks 26a, 26b, and 26c, compares the actual distances with the ideal distances, and calculates X and Y correction factors. Using these correction factors, digital pattern data 20 is "stretched" or "warped,"” wherein the digital pattern is interpreted as the graphical representation.) (e.g., paragraph [0029]).
However, neither Beaver nor Banker appears to specifically teach correlating an appearance of the custom product, having the plurality of parameters, with the graphical representation of the physical product, having corresponding parameters, by using markups to verify locations of a plurality of red lines, green lines, and blue lines of the markup.
On the other hand, Savage, which relates to physical markup for designing custom products, does teach correlating an appearance of the custom product, having the plurality of parameters, with the graphical representation of the physical product, having corresponding parameters, by using markups to verify locations of a plurality of red lines, green lines, and blue lines of the markup (“The Makers’ Marks pipeline begins after users model and scan an annotated object. The scan’s result is a full-color 3D model with vertex and triangle information for the mesh, as well as links to texture files (i.e., photographs), and mappings of texture files to mesh triangles […] We detect and localize user-placed annotations, or “marks,” in the 2D texture images associated with a scanned object. We then calculate each mark’s 3D pose (Figure 4 left).” Figure 4 discloses the makers’ marks pipeline; a user first places physical markup on a sculpture, which is then scanned to create a 3D model. The physical markups are identified in the 3D model, wherein the physical markups may represent various components including red lines, green lines, and blue lines.) (e.g., page 4, column 2, paragraph 5; page 5, figure 4 and column 1, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Beaver with Banker. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Beaver teaches a method for designing, rendering, and manufacturing a custom product. However, Beaver does not appear to specifically teach detecting regions of differences between the manufactured custom product and the rendering, correlating the rendering and physical product, and correcting the rendering based on the differences. On the other hand, Banker, which relates to analyzing a scanned print, does teach detecting difference between a printed product, correlating the printed product and a digital patter, and correcting the digital pattern based on the printed product. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a lack of actual combination of the design and rendering of Beaver with the correlation and correction of Banker. As Beaver relates to framed prints (e.g., Beaver; page [0006]), and Banker provides a method for verifying scans of printed objects, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method of Beaver with the method of Banker; in combination, the designing and rendering of Beaver and the correlation and correction of Banker merely perform the same function as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Beaver with Banker in order to verify the design of a printed product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Beaver in view of Banker with Savage. The claimed invention is considered to be merely using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Beaver teaches a method for designing, rendering, and manufacturing a custom product. However, Beaver does not appear to specifically teach correlating an appearance of a custom product with a graphical representation of the product using markups to verify locations of objects. On the other hand, Savage, which relates similarly to deigning and fabricating custom objects, does teach correlating an appearance of a custom product with a graphical representation using markups. As both Beaver and Savage disclose designing, rendering, and manufacturing a custom product, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the improvement of Savage of using physical markups to the method of Beaver, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the improvement as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the markup of Savage with the product design of Beaver in order to more accurately correlate a physical product and its graphical representation.
Regarding Claim 2, Beaver in view of Banker and Savage teaches The method of claim 1. Beaver further teaches wherein the key-value pair is a data structure that includes an attribute key and a corresponding attribute value (“A key may represent a particular attribute that may be used to describe one or more products. Each key may be associated with a particular value or a legal set of values, where a value represents a specific characteristic of the corresponding attribute.”) (e.g., paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 3, Beaver in view of Banker and Savage teaches The method of claim 1. Beaver further teaches the method further comprising: generating asset definition data based on, at least in part, the plurality of parameters of a custom product (“A computed value may be any value or set of values that is computed based on an evaluation function. The computation may occur in real-time as a user is designing a custom product. For example, the evaluation function may compute the surface area of a custom print based on a width and height input.” The surface area is interpreted as an example of asset definition data, wherein the width and height inputs are a plurality of parameters.)(e.g., paragraph [0047]).
and automatically generating, based on the asset definition data, data structure data by applying a plurality of filters to the asset definition data (“In an embodiment, an expression may describe a product attribute as a computed value. For example, a Print product may have attributes of Width, height, and Media. One expression associated with a Print product could be: [4] width={>=8, <=60}, thus indicating that potential matches for the width may be greater than or equal to 8 units and less than or equal to 60 units.” The inequality expressions for width are interpreted as a plurality of filters.) (e.g., paragraphs [0056], [0057], and [0058]).
Regarding Claim 6, Beaver in view of Banker and Savage teaches The method of claim 1. Beaver further teaches the method further comprising: automatically generating a digital representation of the custom product by: applying a plurality of advanced filters to generate the digital representation of the custom product (“In step 406, the default filter is applied to determine default values for attributes of the custom product and/or accessory products [...] In step 408, the default value is applied to the custom and/or accessory product [...] These attribute values may be used to render a representative image of a large, black T-shirt.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0124] and [0125]).
Regarding Claim 7, Beaver in view of Banker and Savage teaches The method of claim 6. Beaver further teaches wherein an advanced filter, of the plurality of advanced filters, is a computer program code that comprises a set of executable commands (“In an embodiment, the specified syntax supported by attribute engine 108 is a key-value syntax that allows products characteristics and constraints to be described as a set of keys and values [...] The key-value syntax is capable of serialization or expression in a text string and is capable of participating in matching operations as further described [...] The matching operations may be used for a variety of purposes, including, without limitation, matching custom product definitions to accessory filters, default filters, and render files.” Key-value syntax is interpreted as comprising the aforementioned inequality filters, which are executable commands.) (e.g., paragraph [0043]).
Banker further teaches executable commands which, when executed by a computer processor, cause the computer processor to recognize one or more components depicted in the graphical representation (“Before evaluating the image, print image analyzer 22 has a landmark registration process to compensate for imperfect scanners and to identify the expected locations in the buffer for target objects 16a-f.” Identifying target objects 16a-f is interpreted as recognizing one or more components.) (e.g., paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 8, Beaver teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing one or more instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform (“In an embodiment, elements including without limitation the attribute engine and elements discussed above and termed "framework" may be implemented in the form of computer program instructions that are stored or recorded in one or more non-transitory storage media and later loaded into the memory of a general-purpose computer or special-purpose computer and executed by processor 120.”) (e.g., paragraph [0040]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 8 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 9, 10, 13, and 14, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 15, Beaver teaches A custom product computer system generator comprising: a memory unit; one or more processors; and a custom product computer storing one or more instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform (“In an embodiment, elements including without limitation the attribute engine and elements discussed above and termed "framework" may be implemented in the form of computer program instructions that are stored or recorded in one or more non-transitory storage media and later loaded into the memory of a general-purpose computer or special-purpose computer and executed by processor 120.”) (e.g., paragraph [0040]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 15 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 2 and 3, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claims 6 and 7, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaver in view of Banker, further in view of Adobe (Adobe. “Understand shapes and paths.” Photoshop User Guide. Last modified February 15, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20190621205001/https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/drawing.html), hereinafter Adobe.
Regarding Claim 4, Beaver in view of Banker and Savage teaches The method of Claim 3. However, neither Beaver nor Banker nor Savage appears to specifically teach wherein the data structure data comprise layers data and paths data that, in combination, represent the custom product.
On the other hand, Adobe, which relates to photo editing software, does teach wherein the data structure data comprise layers data and paths data that, in combination, represent the custom product (“Paths are outlines that you can turn into selections, or fill and stroke with color. You can easily change the shape of a path by editing its anchor points [...] You can use paths in several ways: Use a path as a vector mask to hide areas of a layer.”) (e.g., page 1, paragraph 4; page 2, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Beaver in view of Banker with Adobe. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Beaver teaches a method for designing, rendering, and manufacturing custom printed products using key-value data. On the other hand, Beaver does not appear to specifically teach wherein the data comprises layer and paths data. On the other hand, Adobe, which relates to image editing software, does teach layer and paths data representing a product. The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a lack of actual combination of the key-value data structure of Beaver with the layer and path data of Adobe. As Beaver relates to creating custom manufacture products such as photos (e.g., Beaver; paragraph [0035]), and Adobe relates to the popular image editing software Photoshop®, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used the key-value data structure of Beaver to store layer and paths data; in combination, the key-value data structure and the layer and paths data of Adobe merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Beaver with Adobe in order to take advantage of preexisting photo editing software.
Regarding Claim 5, Beaver in view of Banker and Savage teaches The method of Claim 3. Beaver further teaches wherein a filter, of the plurality of filters, is a computer program that comprises a set of executable commands (“In an embodiment, the specified syntax supported by attribute engine 108 is a key-value syntax that allows products characteristics and constraints to be described as a set of keys and values [...] The key-value syntax is capable of serialization or expression in a text string and is capable of participating in matching operations as further described [...] The matching operations may be used for a variety of purposes, including, without limitation, matching custom product definitions to accessory filters, default filters, and render files.” Key-value syntax is interpreted as comprising the aforementioned inequality filters, which are executable commands.) (e.g., paragraph [0043]).
However, neither Beaver nor Banker nor Savage teaches the executable commands which, when executed by a computer processor, cause the computer processor to traverse paths defined in a corresponding layout to capture path data (“When you work with the shape or pen tools, you can draw in three different modes [...] Paths: Draws a work path on the current layer that you can then use to make a selection, create a vector mask, or fill and stroke with color to create raster graphics.” Using a path to make a selection, create a mask, or create graphics is interpreted as traversing paths to capture path data.) (e.g., page 2, paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Beaver in view of Banker with Adobe for the same reasons as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 4, 5, 4, and 5, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189