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 .
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.
Claims 1-8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada (20200356591) in view of Yonaha (20180322223).
Regarding claim 1, Yada teaches A product design generation assistance device comprising: (par. 53, provides product-image generation system).
at least one memory storing a computer program; and (pars. 27 and 31, stores executable machine-readable instructions).
at least one processor configured to execute the computer program to (par. 27, processors execute stored instructions).
acquire an existing product image representing a design of an existing product (pars. 36-37 and 52-54, receives selected product image).
identify, based on the existing product image, a feature of a design of a new product (pars. 39-41, 54-58 and 85-86, derives new-design feature vector).
Yada does not teach the feature satisfying a condition regarding a difference from the design of the existing product.
Yonaha teaches the feature satisfying a condition regarding a difference from the design of the existing product (pars. 78-81, applies adjustable design-difference threshold).
Yada teaches output, based on the feature related to the design of the new product, design information related to the design of the new product (pars. 41, 46, 58 and 63, outputs generated design information).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Yada the adjustable design difference threshold taught by Yonaha. The reason is to provide repeatable control over the degree of visual difference between the existing and generated product designs.
Regarding claim 2, see Yada pars. 40, 60-61 and 75-76, controls generated-image color and pattern.
Regarding claim 3, see Yada pars. 41 and 58-59, generates image using trained decoder.
Regarding claim 4, see Yada pars. 58-59 and 78-79, trains image to vector generation model.
Regarding claim 5, see Yada pars. 40 and 75-76, applies generated image color condition.
Regarding claim 6, see Yada pars. 39, 54-55 and 85-86, extracts input-image feature vector. Pars. 56-58 and 85-86, generates from extracted feature vector.
Regarding claim 7, see Yada pars. 44-46 and 63, receives multiple candidate product images. Pars. 44-45, extracts candidate-image feature vectors. Pars. 45 and 63-64, selects nearest candidate design. Pars. 46 and 63, outputs selected design information.
Regarding claim 8, see Yada pars. 39, 54-55 and 85-86, maps image into feature vector. Pars. 45, 70-73 and 86, applies prescribed vector-distance condition. Pars. 63 and 70-73, displays design at identified position.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada (20200356591) in view of Yonaha (20180322223), and further in view of Iwasaki (20020145603).
Yada and Yonaha does not teach output an image representing the feature vector space including the feature related to the design of the existing product and the feature related to the design of the new product.
Regarding claim 9, Iwasaki teaches output an image representing the feature vector space including the feature related to the design of the existing product and the feature related to the design of the new product (pars. 72-80, displays images at feature coordinates).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the Yada and Yonaha the feature space display taught by Iwasaki. The reason is to make the relative design positions and similarities visible to the designer.
Regarding claim 10, see Yada pars. 70-73, displays image selected by cursor.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada (20200356591) in view of Yonaha (20180322223), and further in view of Choi (20020085011).
Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches exclude a predetermined region in the feature vector space from a search target at a time of identifying the position at which the distance to the design of the existing product satisfies a criterion (pars. 29-38, excludes regions failing distance threshold).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Yada and Yonaha the region exclusion feature taught by Choi. The reason is to avoid searching feature space regions that cannot contain a qualifying design.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada (20200356591) in view of Yonaha (20180322223), and further in view of Afshar (20210224582) and Carvalho (20140136285).
Yada and Yonaha does not teach perform weighting on the distance to the design of the existing product.
Regarding claim 12, Afshar teaches perform weighting on the distance to the design of the existing product (pars. 38-40 and 59-69, weights product-image feature distance).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the combination of Yada and Yonaha the feature weighting taught by Afshar in order to cause visually important product attributes to contribute more strongly to the design distance calculation.
The combination of Yada, Yonaha and Afshar does not teach according to importance of the existing product in a competitive relationship with the new product.
Carvalho teaches according to importance of the existing product in a competitive relationship with the new product (pars. 26-34 and 38-40, scores relevant competing products).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the combination of Yada, Yonaha and Afshar the competitor relevancy scoring taught by Carvalho. The reason is to give a more importance a greater effect in the design distance calculation.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada (20200356591) in view of Yonaha (20180322223) and Afshar (20210224582), and further in view of Tao (20190325626).
The combination of Yada and Yonaha does not teach a first design difference satisfying a first condition (equal to or more than a criterion) and a second design difference satisfying a second condition (equal to or less than a criterion).
Regarding claim 13, Afshar teaches a difference satisfying a first condition (equal to or more than a criterion) (pars. 29-31, distance above threshold).
a difference satisfying a second condition (equal to or less than a criterion) (pars. 29-31, distance below threshold).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the combination of Yada and Yonaha the numerical distance thresholds taught by Afshar. The reason is to be able to express visual feature comparisons as repeatable numerical conditions.
Tao teaches a first existing product that is in a competitive relationship with the new product (par. 55, restricts competitor associated color combination).
a second existing product belonging to a brand line same as a brand line of the new product (pars. 38-39, 52-55 and 62, constrains design to brand exemplars).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the combination of Yada, Yonaha and Afshar the role specific brand constraints taught by Tao. The reason is to preserve the same brand visual identity while avoiding a competitor's visual identity.
Regarding claim 14, see Yada pars. 53-54 and 60-62, receives multiple product images. Pars. 56-61, combines image-derived latent vectors.
Regarding claim 15, see Tao pars. 38-39, 52-55 and 62, constrains design using brand profile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rahman (20210233124, provides item to item recommendations).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights