DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are currently presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
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 2, 7 and 12 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.
The term “plurality of high-dimensional per-vertex garment geometric features” in claims 2, 7 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” of plurality of high-dimensional per-vertex garment geometric features is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Neither the specification nor the claims provide a standard for ascertaining what “high” is, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency
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.
Regarding claims 1-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 6-10 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 11-15 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 6 and 11 recite the abstract idea of predicting the movement of a garment on a body using a series of calculations, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "obtaining, via one or more hardware processors, an input data further comprising a garment template draped on a canonical body pose, and a target body pose;” covers mathematical concepts in the form of receiving a set of variables used to set up an equation (Spec [051], the garment template is obtained from the user and uses model parameters that are learned from data) or alternatively a mental process including an observation of a garment draped over a body and a judgement about what the parameters should be for that setup (Spec [051], the garment template is obtained from the user). But for the inclusion of “via one or more hardware processors”, there is nothing that prevents the operation of the claimed limitation in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. This follows for each subsequent recitation. The limitation of "generating, by using via a first set of plurality of encoders via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of garment aware node features (X) based on the garment template;” covers mathematical concepts in the form of obtaining values that are used in an equation (Spec [052]) or alternatively a mental process including making a judgement about what values should be used in an equation. But for the inclusion of “by using via a first set of plurality of encoders via the one or more hardware processors”, there is nothing that prevents the operation of the claimed limitation in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. This follows for each subsequent recitation. The limitation of "generating, by using a second set of plurality of encoders via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of body and motion aware node features(μ) based on the canonical body pose, and the target body pose;” covers mathematical concepts in the form of calculating a value based on a set of pose values (Spec [054]) or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a set of poses to determine a feature. But for the inclusion of “by using via a second set of plurality of encoders via the one or more hardware processors”, there is nothing that prevents the operation of the claimed limitation in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. This follows for each subsequent recitation. The limitation of "fusing, via the one or more hardware processors, the plurality of garment aware node features (X) and the plurality of body and motion aware 15 node features (μ) to obtain a set of fused node features (n);” covers mathematical concepts in the form of performing a calculation to combine two sets of values (Spec [056]) or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a dataset and judging how to combine it. The limitation of "obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, a set of edge features (π) based on a plurality of relative positions (E, Eprior) of a plurality of edges comprised in the garment template;” covers mathematical concepts in the form of performing calculations on positional coordinates of the garment to determine a set of values (Spec[057]) or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a set of positional coordinates to determine a set of values. The limitation of "generating, via the one or more hardware processors, an encoded garment graph based on the set of fused node features (n) and the set of edge features (π);” covers mathematical concepts in the form of creating a graph from a set of values (Spec [058]) or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a set of values and making a judgement about how to put them in a graph. The limitation of "processing, via the one or more hardware processors, the encoded garment graph to obtain a processed encoded garment graph with an updated set of edge features and an updated set of node features; and” covers mathematical concepts in the form of a series of calculations (Spec [059]-[061]) or alternatively a mental process including a series of evaluations of a dataset. The limitation of "predicting, by using a dynamics decoder via the one or more hardware processors, a simulated garment on the target body pose based on the processed encoded garment graph with the updated set of edge features and the updated set of node features.” covers mathematical concepts in the form of calculating a direction and magnitude of motion using an equation (Spec [0062]-[0063]) or alternatively a mental process including evaluating a dataset to determine a direction and magnitude of motion using an equation. But for the inclusion of “by using a dynamics decoder via the one or more hardware processors”, there is nothing that prevents the operation of the claimed limitation in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. This follows for each subsequent recitation. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept in the form of equations and calculations, or alternatively a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Similarly recited in Claims 1, 6 and 11 and partially in dependent claims 2-3, 7-8 and 12-13 the additional element of “one or more hardware processors”, “a first set of plurality of encoders”, a second set of plurality of encoders”, and “a dynamics decoder”, as well as “a first encoder” and “a second encoder” in claims 2-3, 7-8 and 12-13, as well as “a third encoder” in claims 3, 8 and 13, as well as “a memory” and “one or more communication interfaces” in claim 6, as well as “non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums” in claims 11-15, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 6 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly recited in Claims 1, 6 and 11 and partially in dependent claims 2-3, 7-8 and 12-13 the additional element of “one or more hardware processors”, “a first set of plurality of encoders”, a second set of plurality of encoders”, and “a dynamics decoder”, as well as “a first encoder” and “a second encoder” in claims 2-3, 7-8 and 12-13, as well as “a third encoder” in claims 3, 8 and 13, as well as “a memory” and “one or more communication interfaces” in claim 6, as well as “non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums” in claims 11-15, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 7 and 12 are directed to further defining generation of garment features to then calculate garment aware node features, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3, 8 and 13 are directed to further defining generation of pre-vertex body geometric features and garment aware body semantics to then calculate body and motion aware node features, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4, 9 and 14 are directed to further defining the graph information, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5, 10 and 15 a are directed to further defining the velocity at each vertex, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Bhatnagar, Tiwari, Sanchez-Riera and Shi. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including the calculations and variables that are needed to predict a simulated garment based on an encoded garment graph, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-15 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 and 101 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vidaurre et al. “Fully Convolutional Fraph Neural Networks for Parametric Virtual Try-On”: Also teaches simulating clothing on an avatar using a graph.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights