DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-24 are presented for examination based on the application filed on October 2, 2022.
Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 21 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0062151 A1 Fonte, Timothy et al. [herein “Fonte”].
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11-12, 15-16, 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte in view of US 2013/0085893 A1 Bhardwaj, Anurag et al. [herein “Bhardwaj”].
This action is made non-Final.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: Para. 0032, which cites “other 1 or head products” should be “other frames or head products”
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms “Rhino”, “ARKit”, “ionic”, “NCAA”, and “March Madness”, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
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. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, which cites the acronym “3D” which is not spelled out. The first time acronyms appear in the claim set, the acronyms should be spelled out. Claims 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21, respectively.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, which cites “said selection of fitted eyeglass designs” in Ln. 7, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “selection of fitted eyeglass designs”. For the purpose of examination, “said selection of fitted eyeglass designs” will be interpreted as “said selection of fitted eyeglass frames”. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21, respectively.
Claim 4, which recites “the frames” in Ln. 1, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the frames”. For the purpose of examination, “the frames” will be interpreted as “the selected fitted eyeglass frames”. Claims 8, 12, 16, 20, and 21, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected.
Claim 12, which cites “The computer-implemented method as recited in claim 12”, should be “The computer-implemented method as recited in claim 11”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 21 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 4 recites the phrase “the frames” in Ln. 1. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what “the frames” in the phrase is referring to. “the frames” could be referring to either “user fitted eyeglass frames” or “fitted eyeglass frames”, both from claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “the frames” in this phrase to be “fitted eyeglass frames”. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language from “the frames” to “the fitted eyeglass frames” or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to an “the frames”. Claim 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24, having similar limitations of claim 4, is also rejected under the similar rationale.
Furthermore, claim 4 recites the phrase “the frames are re-ranked after each round” in Ln. 1-2. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what is the first iteration of ranking and when either the said iteration of ranking and re-ranking occurs. The first iteration of ranking, which is not described, could happen any time in the method. The second iteration of ranking, e.g., re-ranking, occurs during each round, but the round could be each round of selecting fitted eyeglass frames, displaying visual rendering, or user selection. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “the frames are re-ranked after each round” in this phrase to be “the fitted eyeglass frames are reseeded after each round of the seeded tournament bracket after the user selection of the displayed 3D visual renderings of the eyeglass frames”. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language as such or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to an “the frames are re-ranked after each round”. Claim 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24, having similar limitations of claim 4, is also rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20, and 21-24 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21: The limitations of:
“capturing facial measurement data of a user”,
“selecting fitted eyeglass frames based on said facial measurement data from a digital inventory of 3D eyeglass designs for additive manufacturing”,
“capturing emotional response cues to eyeglass frame designs of said eyeglass frame selection”,
“personalizing the surface color of a user selected eyeglass frame”, and
“determining a 3D eyeglass design from said digital inventory for additive manufacturing based on user selection of a displayed 3D visual renderings of an eyeglass design”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally collect or draw with a pen and paper measurements when the face of an individual is being measured for eyeglass frames,
a person can mentally select or draw with a pen and paper frames that meet the measurements of the face of an individual from available displayed options that will be 3D printed,
a person can mentally collect or draw with a pen and paper notes about if a person was visibly happy or excited when trying on the selected frames,
a person can mentally select or draw with a pen and paper frames that based on the individual’s color preference, and
a person can mentally select or draw with a pen and paper the model of a frame that the individual chooses to be the frame that will be 3D printed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “using a computer system”, “displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality”, “displaying side-by-side 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality”, “displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality based on said captured emotional response cues”, and “displaying side-by-side 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality based on said captured emotional response cues” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and/or merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data outputting activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, displaying virtual eyeglass frames in an augmented reality on a person’s face is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 2010/0283844 A1 Sayag, Jean-Philippe Para. 0004-0005, “Known systems already allow a user to choose a pair of glasses and, in particular, frames for glasses, using so-called on-line services in the form of for example client-server applications accessible over a communication network such as the Internet. These on-line services offer an integrated simulation environment in which the person can try on in a virtual fashion a number of different eyeglass frames on a demonstration face or on his or her own face in a virtual representation”. Further see US 2013/0063487 A1 Para. 0005, “For example, Ray-Ban virtual mirror allows a user, using a PC, to select various sun-glasses and see the sun-glasses composed over a picture of his face, uploaded by the user or over a live video captured by a camera. Similarly, Holition supports Augmented Reality solutions for the jewelry industry, and Zugara provides Augmented Reality solutions for the fashion industry”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 22, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein said 3D eyeglass designs for additive manufacturing are based on universal standards in integer millimeters”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally select or draw with a pen and paper frames that meet the measurements of the face of an individual from available displayed options that will be 3D printed based on universal standards of integer millimeters.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, and 23, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein said displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality are displayed in a seeded tournament bracket style selection”, which is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and/or a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, displaying virtual eyeglass frames in an augmented reality on a person’s face is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 2010/0283844 A1 Sayag, Jean-Philippe Para. 0004-0005, “Known systems already allow a user to choose a pair of glasses and, in particular, frames for glasses, using so-called on-line services in the form of for example client-server applications accessible over a communication network such as the Internet. These on-line services offer an integrated simulation environment in which the person can try on in a virtual fashion a number of different eyeglass frames on a demonstration face or on his or her own face in a virtual representation”. Further see US 2013/0063487 A1 Para. 0005, “For example, Ray-Ban virtual mirror allows a user, using a PC, to select various sun-glasses and see the sun-glasses composed over a picture of his face, uploaded by the user or over a live video captured by a camera. Similarly, Holition supports Augmented Reality solutions for the jewelry industry, and Zugara provides Augmented Reality solutions for the fashion industry”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, and 23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the frames are re-ranked after each round”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally reseed or draw with a pen and paper frames that were selected by the individual during the first round of the seeded tournament bracket style selection to always have the highest seed compete against the lowest seed and the next highest seed compete again the next lowest seed, i.e., seed one competes against seed four and seed two competes against seed two.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-24 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claim 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0062151 A1 Fonte, Timothy et al. [herein “Fonte”].
As per claim 1, Fonte teaches “A computer-implemented method for real time augmented reality selection of user fitted eyeglass frames for additive manufacture, using a computer system”. (Para. 0216, “an augmented reality approach is used. A live video feed of the user's face is shown using a computer system configured with a video camera” [A computer-implemented method for augmented reality using a computer system]. “The quantitative anatomic model tracks with the user's face in real time, allowing the 3D eyewear model to be displayed and superimposed on the user's face in real time as the user moves his face in front of the computer system. This would create the illusion of looking in a mirror while trying on the glasses” [real time augmented reality of user eyeglass]. Para. 0188, “the custom fit and style is recommended by the computer system based on the user's image data and potentially additional information they provide. In addition to custom fit for a base design selected by the user, the computer system may also suggest eyewear styles, creating custom products specific for the use” [selection of user fitted eyeglass]. Para. 0038, “Eyewear includes eyeglass frames, sunglass frames, frames and lenses together” [fitted eyeglass frames]. Para. 0300, “The computer system also prepares manufacturing files depending on the method of manufacture needed for the particular eyewear model, including but not limited to: model files for rapid prototyping or additive manufacturing methods” [for additive manufacture]. Further see Para. 0038, 0188, 0216, and 0300. The examiner has interpreted that using an augmented reality approach with a computer system to capture a live video feed of a user’s face in real time to display and superimpose a 3D eyewear model for trying on custom fit of eyeglass frames to be manufactured by additive manufacturing as a computer-implemented method for real time augmented reality selection of user fitted eyeglass frames for additive manufacture, using a computer system.)
Fonte teaches “capturing facial measurement data of a user”. (Para. 0120, “FIG. 5 shows a user 501 using a computer device 502 to acquire image data of their face 503. Instructions are provided to the user to place their face in certain positions while the computer system captures and analyzes image data of the user's face” [capturing facial data of a user]. Para. 0096, “The computer system obtains imaging data of the user, determines anatomic data, measurements from image data” [capturing facial measurement data of a user]. Further see Para. 0095-0101 and 0120-0123. The examiner has interpreted that acquiring image data of a user’s face to determine measurements as capturing facial measurement data of a user.)
Fonte teaches “selecting fitted eyeglass frames based on said facial measurement data from a digital inventory of 3D eyeglass designs for additive manufacturing”. (Para. 0172, “FIG. 9 shows an example of an eyewear model 901 that was adjusted to eyewear model 902 by altering a parameter for the width 903 of the eyewear around the lens” [selecting fitted eyeglass frame]. Para. 0172, “These parameters could have up to infinite variability of the size and form of the product, allowing ultimate precision, if needed, in fitting a custom model to a user's anatomy and preferences” [based on said facial measurement data]. Para, 0103, “the computer system contains configurable product models added by the manufacturer” [from a digital inventory of eyeglass designs]. Para. 0170, “In FIGS. 1A and 1B steps 106 and 107 describe a configurable product or configurable eyewear model. In an exemplary embodiment, the configurable model is three-dimensional, configured with parametric features and dimensions, and represented as a 3D surface mesh” [a digital inventory of 3D eyeglass designs]. Para. 0250, “Instructions are provided to the user through the display of 1104. It should be recognized by those skilled in the art that a variety of other designs could suite the same needs described for viewing, customizing, and ordering eyewear. For example, multiple views of the eyewear may be used, such as 2, 4, or 9 windows displayed with different styles at the same time or different view perspectives of the user. In one embodiment, the computer system displays multiple instances of the user, with each instance wearing a different configuration of custom eyewear” [e.g., selecting fitted eyeglass frames]. Para. 0300, “The computer system also prepares manufacturing files depending on the method of manufacture needed for the particular eyewear model, including but not limited to: model files for rapid prototyping or additive manufacturing methods” [for additive manufacture]. Further see Para. 0103, 0170-0172, 0250 and 0300. The examiner has interpreted that adjusting a configurable eyewear model to fit the user’s anatomy for a variety of different styles from configurable product models added by the manufacturer that are in three dimensions to be manufactured by additive manufacturing as selecting fitted eyeglass frames based on said facial measurement data from a digital inventory of 3D eyeglass designs for additive manufacturing.)
Fonte teaches “displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality”. (Para. 0250, “FIG. 11 shows an example computer system interface 1101, which would be shown on the display of the computer system, with a preview of eyewear 1106 on user 1102” [on a user's face]. Para. 0250, “Instructions are provided to the user through the display of 1104. It should be recognized by those skilled in the art that a variety of other designs could suite the same needs described for viewing, customizing, and ordering eyewear. For example, multiple views of the eyewear may be used, such as 2, 4, or 9 windows displayed with different styles at the same time or different view perspectives of the user. In one embodiment, the computer system displays multiple instances of the user, with each instance wearing a different configuration of custom eyewear” [e.g., displaying visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face]. Further see Fig. 11-12 which show the visual renderings on the user’s faces. Para. 0216, “an augmented reality approach is used. A live video feed of the user's face is shown using a computer system configured with a video camera. The quantitative anatomic model tracks with the user's face in real time, allowing the 3D eyewear model to be displayed and superimposed on the user's face in real time as the user moves his face in front of the computer system. This would create the illusion of looking in a mirror while trying on the glasses” [displaying 3D visual renderings using augmented reality]. Further see Para. 0184, 0216, and 0250 in addition to Fig. 11 and 12. The examiner has interpreted that displaying different configurations of the custom eyewear using augmented reality to superimpose the 3D eyewear models on the user’s face as displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality.)
Fonte teaches “determining a 3D eyeglass design from said digital inventory for additive manufacturing based on user selection of a displayed 3D visual renderings of an eyeglass design.” (Para. 0298, “After a user determines the final custom eyewear he wants to order, the computer system may generate a final representation that is more photo-realistically rendered and of higher quality and resolution if the original preview images were made to a lower quality for efficiency. The computer system provides to the user a price, expected shipping date, and other information prior to the completion of the order for his custom eyewear. The representation may consist of the various parameters and settings selected by the user or a final 3D model of the eyewear” [determining a 3D eyeglass design based on user selection of a displayed 3D visual renderings of an eyeglass design]. Para. 0170, “In FIGS. 1A and 1B steps 106 and 107 describe a configurable product or configurable eyewear model. In an exemplary embodiment, the configurable model is three-dimensional, configured with parametric features and dimensions, and represented as a 3D surface mesh” [from said digital inventory]. Para. 0300, “The computer system also prepares manufacturing files depending on the method of manufacture needed for the particular eyewear model, including but not limited to: model files for rapid prototyping or additive manufacturing methods” [for additive manufacture]. Further see Para. 0170 and 0298-0300. The examiner has interpreted that generate the final representation that consists a final 3D model of the eyewear that the user determines for the final custom eyewear that he wants to order from the configured 3D eyewear models to be manufactured using additive manufacturing as determining a 3D eyeglass design from said digital inventory for additive manufacturing based on user selection of a displayed 3D visual renderings of an eyeglass design.)
As per claim 2, Fonte teaches “wherein said 3D eyeglass designs for additive manufacturing are based on universal standards in integer millimeters.” (Para, 0103, “the computer system contains configurable product models added by the manufacturer” [eyeglass designs]. Para. 0170, “In FIGS. 1A and 1B steps 106 and 107 describe a configurable product or configurable eyewear model. In an exemplary embodiment, the configurable model is three-dimensional, configured with parametric features and dimensions, and represented as a 3D surface mesh” [3D eyeglass design]. Para. 0250, “Instructions are provided to the user through the display of 1104. It should be recognized by those skilled in the art that a variety of other designs could suite the same needs described for viewing, customizing, and ordering eyewear. For example, multiple views of the eyewear may be used, such as 2, 4, or 9 windows displayed with different styles at the same time or different view perspectives of the user. In one embodiment, the computer system displays multiple instances of the user, with each instance wearing a different configuration of custom eyewear” [e.g., multiple 3D eyeglass designs]. Para. 0300, “The computer system also prepares manufacturing files depending on the method of manufacture needed for the particular eyewear model, including but not limited to: model files for rapid prototyping or additive manufacturing methods” [for additive manufacture]. Para. 0204, “the product model is configured to optimize the optical parameters used to make lenses. In addition to using the details and dimensions from the anatomic model to inform the lens design, the eyewear frame can be optimized to enhance the optical design. For example, standard vertex distance (distance from eye to inner surface of lens) is around 12-14 mm” [are based on universal standards in integer millimeters]. Further see Para. 0170, 0204, and 0300. The examiner has interpreted that different 3D product models added by the manufacturer that are manufactured using additive manufacturing that are configurable using standard vertex distances of 12 mm as wherein said 3D eyeglass designs for additive manufacturing are based on universal standards in integer millimeters.)
Re Claim 5, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 5 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Fonte teaches “displaying side-by-side 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality”. (Para. 0250, “FIG. 11 shows an example computer system interface 1101, which would be shown on the display of the computer system, with a preview of eyewear 1106 on user 1102” [on a user's face]. Para. 0250, “Instructions are provided to the user through the display of 1104. It should be recognized by those skilled in the art that a variety of other designs could suite the same needs described for viewing, customizing, and ordering eyewear. For example, multiple views of the eyewear may be used, such as 2, 4, or 9 windows displayed with different styles at the same time or different view perspectives of the user. In one embodiment, the computer system displays multiple instances of the user, with each instance wearing a different configuration of custom eyewear” [e.g., displaying side-by-side visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face]. Further see Fig. 11-12 which show the visual renderings on the user’s faces. Para. 0216, “an augmented reality approach is used. A live video feed of the user's face is shown using a computer system configured with a video camera. The quantitative anatomic model tracks with the user's face in real time, allowing the 3D eyewear model to be displayed and superimposed on the user's face in real time as the user moves his face in front of the computer system. This would create the illusion of looking in a mirror while trying on the glasses” [displaying side-by-side 3D visual renderings using augmented reality]. Further see Para. 0184, 0216, and 0250 in addition to Fig. 11 and 12. The examiner has interpreted that displaying different configurations of the custom eyewear in different windows at the same time using augmented reality to superimpose the 3D eyewear models on the user’s face as displaying side-by-side 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality.)
Re Claim 6, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 6 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 9, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Fonte teaches “capturing emotional response cues to eyeglass frame designs of said eyeglass frame selection” and “displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality based on said captured emotional response cues”. (Para. 0199, “It is desirable to design custom eyewear accounting for the user's face in various expressions. For example, the structure of cheeks change when a person smiles or brow shape change when a person frowns, which could cause interference with the eyewear design” [emotional response cues to eyeglass frame designs of said eyeglass frame selection]. Para. 0200, “A computer system acquires additional image data or the user with at least one additional expression and constructs at least one additional face model” [capturing emotional response cues]. Para. 0200, “The computer system performs placement, design optimization, user adjustment, and preview with one additional constraint from previously described methods: The eyewear design, placement, and preview is performed across a plurality of face models representing the user at multiple expressions. The optimal design that satisfied the constraints of all the face models or all the expressions is produced, resulting in custom eyewear that is best fit to the user across their range of facial expressions and movement” [displaying visual renderings based on said captured emotional response cues]. Para. 0250, “FIG. 11 shows an example computer system interface 1101, which would be shown on the display of the computer system, with a preview of eyewear 1106 on user 1102” [on a user's face]. Para. 0250, “Instructions are provided to the user through the display of 1104. It should be recognized by those skilled in the art that a variety of other designs could suite the same needs described for viewing, customizing, and ordering eyewear. For example, multiple views of the eyewear may be used, such as 2, 4, or 9 windows displayed with different styles at the same time or different view perspectives of the user. In one embodiment, the computer system displays multiple instances of the user, with each instance wearing a different configuration of custom eyewear” [e.g., displaying visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face]. Further see Fig. 11-12 which show the visual renderings on the user’s faces. Para. 0216, “an augmented reality approach is used. A live video feed of the user's face is shown using a computer system configured with a video camera. The quantitative anatomic model tracks with the user's face in real time, allowing the 3D eyewear model to be displayed and superimposed on the user's face in real time as the user moves his face in front of the computer system. This would create the illusion of looking in a mirror while trying on the glasses” [displaying 3D visual renderings using augmented reality]. Further see Para. 0184, 0216, and 0250 in addition to Fig. 11 and 12. The examiner has interpreted that acquiring the user with at least one additional expression accounting for the user's face in various expressions which could cause interference with the eyewear design and displaying different configurations of the custom eyewear using augmented reality to superimpose the 3D eyewear models on the user’s face representing a range of facial expressions and movement as capturing emotional response cues to eyeglass frame designs of said eyeglass frame selection and displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality based on said captured emotional response cues.)
Re Claim 10, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 13, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claims 5 and 9. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 and 9.
Re Claim 14, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 17, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 17, Fonte teaches “personalizing the surface color of a user selected eyeglass frame”. (Para. 0112, “the user may interact with the computer system to adjust at least one of the eyewear size, shape, position, style, color, finish and patterns, etc.” [personalizing the surface color of a user selected eyeglass frame]. Further see Para. 0012 and 0250. The examiner has interpreted that adjusting the eyewear color based on user interaction as personalizing the surface color of a user selected eyeglass frame.)
Re Claim 18, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 21, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claims 13 and 17. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 13 and 17.
Re Claim 22, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11-12, 15-16, 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte in view of US 2013/0085893 A1 Bhardwaj, Anurag et al. [herein “Bhardwaj”].
As per claim 3, Fonte teaches “wherein said displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality are displayed in a seeded [tournament bracket style] selection.” (Para. 0250, “FIG. 11 shows an example computer system interface 1101, which would be shown on the display of the computer system, with a preview of eyewear 1106 on user 1102” [displaying on a user's face]. Para. 0250, “Instructions are provided to the user through the display of 1104. It should be recognized by those skilled in the art that a variety of other designs could suite the same needs described for viewing, customizing, and ordering eyewear. For example, multiple views of the eyewear may be used, such as 2, 4, or 9 windows displayed with different styles at the same time or different view perspectives of the user. In one embodiment, the computer system displays multiple instances of the user, with each instance wearing a different configuration of custom eyewear” [e.g., displaying visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face]. Further see Fig. 11-12 which show the visual renderings on the user’s faces. Para. 0216, “an augmented reality approach is used. A live video feed of the user's face is shown using a computer system configured with a video camera. The quantitative anatomic model tracks with the user's face in real time, allowing the 3D eyewear model to be displayed and superimposed on the user's face in real time as the user moves his face in front of the computer system. This would create the illusion of looking in a mirror while trying on the glasses” [displaying 3D visual renderings using augmented reality]. Para. 0195, “The preferences are determined by actual users, designers, test users, or through other means. The preferences are set as a single favorite, plurality of favorites, range of favorites, ranked favorites, or scored favorites. Additionally, a user may have unfavorable preferences, or features that do not appeal to them. For example, a user may equally favor round and oval frame shapes, but dislike rectangle frame shapes. The preferences are set automatically based on the user's use of the computer system. In an exemplary embodiment, the user shops for eyewear and when he takes certain actions, such as rating the eyewear” [e.g., seeded]. Para. 0250, “For example, multiple views of the eyewear may be used, such as 2, 4, or 9 windows displayed with different styles at the same time or different view perspectives of the user. In one embodiment, the computer system displays multiple instances of the user, with each instance wearing a different configuration of custom eyewear. Each eyewear shown may have one or a plurality of options changed. For example, the display shows nine instances of the user's face, with each instance showing the user wearing the same custom eyewear design but each design is displayed with a different color, style, or lens material” [e.g., are displayed seeded selection]. Further see Para. 0195, 0216, and 0250 in addition to Fig. 11 and 12. The examiner has interpreted that displaying different configurations of the custom eyewear using augmented reality to superimpose the 3D eyewear models on the user’s face based on rating and ranking of the eyewear style as wherein said displaying 3D visual renderings of said selection of fitted eyeglass designs on a user's face using augmented reality are displayed in a seeded selection.)
Fonte does not specifically teach that the seeded selection is a “seeded tournament bracket style selection.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely ranking fashion designs for a user selection a fashion article, Bhardwaj teaches “displayed in a seeded tournament bracket style selection.” (Para. 0098, “the matching items from that category are displayed to the user at a screen 910. The matching items are ordered from highest to lowest similarity score for that category” [e.g., displayed in a seeded selection]. Para. 0099, “user indications or preferences during interaction with the provided matching results are used to re-rank or re-order the items within the initial matching results to better suit the user's interest”. Para. 0102 “the re-ranked matching results comprise refinement of the initial matching results”. Para. 0103, “the initial matching results shown on screen 910 re-ordered based on the user preference for the (initially) third ranked item 913 (a blue and white striped polo shirt). Notice that the re-ranked results comprise the (initially) third ranked item 913 as the first ranked item” [reranking after first round, e.g., a reseeding tournament bracket style selection]. Further see Para. 0098-0103. The examiner has interpreted that displaying matching fashion inventory items to the user ordered from highest to lowest similarity score and re-ranking the third ranked item as the first ranked item after user indication from interaction to refine the matching results as displayed in a seeded tournament bracket style selection.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a “displayed in a seeded tournament bracket style selection” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Bhardwaj, into that of Fonte because this modification of comparing multiple designs to refine the user selection of a design for the advantageous purpose of refining the selection of items with items ranked that better suit the user’s interest (Bhardwaj, Para. 0099-0103). Further motivation to combine be that Fonte and Bhardwaj are analogous art to the current claim directed to ranking fashion designs for a user selection a fashion article.
As per claim 4, Fonte teaches “wherein the frames [are re-ranked after each round].” (Para. 0188, “the custom fit and style is recommended by the computer system based on the user's image data and potentially additional information they provide. In addition to custom fit for a base design selected by the user, the computer system may also suggest eyewear styles, creating custom products specific for the use” [selection of user fitted eyeglass]. Para. 0038, “Eyewear includes eyeglass frames, sunglass frames, frames and lenses together” [fitted eyeglass frames]. Further see Para. 0038 and 0188. The examiner has interpreted that the eyewear including eyeglass frames that are suggested based on a custom fit as the frames.)
Fonte does not specifically teach that the frames are “re-ranked after each round”.
However, Bhardwaj teaches “re-ranked after each round”. (Para. 0099, “user indications or preferences during interaction with the provided matching results are used to re-rank or re-order the items within the initial matching results to better suit the user's interest”. Para. 0102 “the re-ranked matching results comprise refinement of the initial matching results”. Para. 0103, “the initial matching results shown on screen 910 re-ordered based on the user preference for the (initially) third ranked item 913 (a blue and whit