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 .
Priority
The current application claimed priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/479,450, filed 1/11/2023.
Claims Status
Claims 19-20 have been newly added.
Claims 1-20 are pending and stand rejected.
Drawings
Applicant’s replacement drawings filed 12/15/2025 have been received and are accepted. The previous objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments concerning Prong One are acknowledged. Applicant is reminded that Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
As written, automatically performing a compatibility check based on the selected fabric type and the sewing pattern data represents an observation, evaluation, or judgment performable in the human mind. Additionally, generating, based on the sewing pattern selection and the fabric selection, a representation of the garment made from the fabric, wherein generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation is a process performable by a human using a physical aid. Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).The Examiner thereby maintains that the claims recite mental processes for the reasons above.
Even assuming arguendo the claims do not recite mental processes, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly recite an abstract idea under Prong One because they recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) as discussed previously and reiterated below.
The Examiner also holds that Applicant’s comparison to the circumstances and concepts described in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc is inapposite. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. If the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (MPEP 2106.05(a))
Turning to McRO specifically, the basis for the court’s decision in McRO was that the claims were clearly directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters"). As part of the analysis, the court in McRO emphasized the specification, which clearly described the invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules. The decision in McRO was similar to that in Enfish v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2016) and other precedential decisions in that the courts emphasized the specificity of the specification in detailing and solving a problem arising in a specific technology or technical field.
As written, the claimed invention does not provide an improvement akin to McRO, or otherwise improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. Instead, the claimed invention manifests an improvement to a process for fashion design. That is, the claimed invention only manifests an improvement to the abstract idea itself – not the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field.
MPEP 2106.05(d) also contrasts the McRO decision with that in in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC. In that decision, the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner holds that a more proper comparison of the claimed invention is to that of Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, rather than McRO (or other eligible decisions).
As an example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. Like Mortgage Grader, the claimed invention allows a user to perform steps in facilitation of the abstract idea of fashion design using the computerized components as a tool to accomplish the abstract idea.
It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc. are also unpersuasive. The Examiner again disagrees that such comparisons are appropriate. The claims in Core Wireless recited a menu screen that provided an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu. More importantly, the application summary displayed a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application, and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state.
The court was careful to distinguish the claims as an improvement to the user interface of a computing device (particularly those with small screens), rather than the abstract idea of an index, and drew from the specification by emphasizing teachings therein that discussed many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer. The court emphasized the limitations above, stating that they provided “a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer”.
The rationale applied by the courts is not applicable to the claimed invention, and any comparison of the claims and/or concepts at issue to those of in Core Wireless, McRO or the like is inapposite. The claimed invention does not seek to improve computers or technology, but instead leverages such components while potentially addressing an abstract, commercial problem in fashion design. That is, the claims Merely utilize the computing components as a tool while (arguably) improving the abstract fashion design process itself.
With respect to Example 23, the Examiner again disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claimed invention does not address a problem in graphical users interfaces. The claimed invention bears little if any semblance to Example 23, which sought to improve GUIs through relocating obscured textual information. Here again, the Examiner reiterates that if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. If the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)). No such details exist in the filed disclosure, nor do the claims otherwise reflect such details so as to achieve an improvement to the interface, the computer or even another technology or technical field.
Similar reasoning is applicable to the analysis under Step 2B. The Examiner reiterates that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Thus, even presuming the claims achieve an improvement to the abstract fashion design process, this is not tantamount to an improvement to computers or technology.
Accordingly, the rejection has been maintained and updated below with respect to the amended claims.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite generating, based on the sewing pattern selection and the fabric selection, a representation of the garment made from the fabric, wherein generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation.
The subject matter of the claim (recited above) does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. The most pertinent portion of the disclosure includes Fig. 8, 0033 and 0035. Paragraph 0033 provides that a patter data may include “a technical drawing 802” and that “a semi-transparent image 806 formed as a semi-transparent line drawing”.
Paragraph 0035 provides that “pattern interface 232 processes the technical drawing to generate transparent image 804, and semi-transparent image 806”
While the specification mentions technical drawings that may be processed to generate a semi-transparent image, the specification fails to provide sufficient disclosure of how the processing is accomplished to achieve the claimed generation. Although the specification may literally support the claimed limitation, merely reproducing the claim limitation in the specification or pointing to an original claim does not satisfy the written description requirement where the claim itself does not convey enough information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Elements that are essentially a "black box" will not be sufficient.
Moreover, whether one of ordinary skill in the art could devise a way to accomplish these functions is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor(s) has shown possession of the claimed invention. This is because the ability to make and use the invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how a function (such as the claimed updating) is performed are not disclosed.
Disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession and it does not satisfy the written description requirement. [See MPEP 2163: II(3)(a)(i), Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406]. Moreover, a specification which does little more than outline goals applicant hopes the claimed invention achieves does not satisfy the written description requirement [see MPEP 2163: II(3)(a)(i), In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984)]. Lastly, the specification lacks adequate description of a “representative number of species” which may satisfy the written description requirement [see MPEP 2163: II(3)(a)(ii)].
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to sufficiently describe any algorithm, steps, or procedures taken to perform the claimed function of processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation raises questions as to whether Applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 19-20 depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1. These claims are thereby rejected along with claim 1 by virtue of their dependency of claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-14 (non-transitory medium), claims 8-14 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-7 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8-14 are rejected under at least similar rationale because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 15-18 (system), claims 15-18 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-7 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 15-18 are rejected under at least similar rationale because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 19-20 under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative of claims 1-7 and 19-20, claim 1 recites fashion design assistant method, comprising:
receiving a sewing pattern selection identifying sewing pattern data having a technical drawing for a garment;
receiving a fabric selection identifying fabric data for a fabric, wherein the fabric data includes a fabric type selected from a predefined set including 2-way knit, woven, woven with Lycra, and non-woven;
automatically performing a compatibility check based on the selected fabric type and the sewing pattern data;
generating, based on the sewing pattern selection and the fabric selection, a representation of the garment made from the fabric, wherein generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation; and displaying the representation of the garment on a display of the client device; and
displaying the representation of the garment.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the limitations above set forth or describe assisting in garment design, which is a marketing or sales activity or behavior. Alternatively, the claimed method manages user behavior, such as by reciting rules or instruction for designing a garment. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, claim 1 can also be understood to recite limitations that set forth or describe “mental processes” that are performable in the human mind, or by pen and paper (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
As written, automatically performing a compatibility check based on the selected fabric type and the sewing pattern data represents an observation, evaluation, or judgment performable in the human mind. Additionally, generating, based on the sewing pattern selection and the fabric selection, a representation of the garment made from the fabric, wherein generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation is a process performable by a human using a physical aid.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 also recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a client device and a display of the client device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7 and 19-20, dependent claims 2-7 and 19-20 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-7 and 19-20 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-7 and 19-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-7 and 19-20 rely upon similar additional elements as recited in claim 1, which are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Where further additional elements are recited (e.g., claim 20: a toolkit, measurement tool, and recommendation tool), these elements are also mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-7 and 19-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, and do nothing more than generally link the exception to a particular technological environment. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-7 and 19-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 8-14 (non-transitory medium), claims 8-14 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-7 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8-14 are rejected under at least similar rationale because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 15-18 under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 15 as representative of claims 15-18, claim 15 recites a fashion design system to
interact with a sewing pattern supplier to receive sewing pattern data having technical drawings;
interact with a fabric supplier to receive fabric data including a fabric type selected from a predefined set including 2-way knit, woven, woven with Lycra, and non-woven;
receive a pattern selection identifying the pattern data for a garment;
receive a fabric selection identifying the fabric data for a fabric;
automatically perform a compatibility check based on the selected fabric type and the sewing pattern data;
generate, based on the sewing pattern selection and the fabric selection, a representation of the garment made from the fabric, wherein generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation; and
display the representation of the garment.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the limitations above set forth or describe assisting in garment design, which is a marketing or sales activity or behavior. Alternatively, the claimed method manages user behavior, such as by reciting rules or instruction for designing a garment. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 15 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, claim 15 can also be understood to recite limitations that set forth or describe “mental processes” that are performable in the human mind, or by pen and paper (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
As written, automatically perform a compatibility check based on the selected fabric type and the sewing pattern data represents an observation, evaluation, or judgment performable in the human mind. Additionally, generate, based on the sewing pattern selection and the fabric selection, a representation of the garment made from the fabric, wherein generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation is a process performable by a human using a physical aid.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 15 also recites an abstract idea because claim 15 recites limitations that fall within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 15 does recite additional elements, including:
a computer server,
a pattern interface comprising machine-readable instructions stored on non- transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by a first processor of the computer server, causes the computer server to,
a fabric interface comprising machine-readable instructions stored on the non- transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the first processor of the computer server, causes the computer server to,
a database for storing the pattern data and the fabric data;
a fashion design assistant tool comprising machine-readable instructions stored on non- transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by a second processor of a client device, cause the client device to, and,
a display of the client device
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 15 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 15 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 16-18, dependent claims 16-18 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 15. As such, claims 16-18 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 16-18 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 16-18 rely upon similar additional elements as recited in claim 1, which are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 16-18 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, and do nothing more than generally link the exception to a particular technological environment. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 16-18 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind (US 2009/0222127 – herein Lind ‘127) in view of Sights (US 2023/0051783) and Prasad (US 2017/0279876).
Regarding claim 1, Lind ‘127 teaches a fashion design assistant method, comprising:
receiving, at a client device, a sewing pattern selection identifying sewing pattern data having a technical drawing for a garment (see: 0029-0030, Fig. 1 (60-64, 110), Fig. 2 (22, 26));
Note: the selected garment includes a garment model (e.g., including type, shape, design variables)) and a pattern layout (technical drawing).
receiving, at the client device, a fabric selection identifying fabric data for a fabric (see: 0031, 0061 (b), Fig. 1 (94-100)),
generating, based on the sewing pattern selection and the fabric selection, a representation of the garment made from the fabric, wherein generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate an overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation (see: 0028(c), 0032 (c)-(d), 0054, 0060-0061, Fig. 5 (112)); and
displaying the representation of the garment on a display of the client device (see: 0033, 0054, 0060-0061, Fig. 1 (212), Fig. 9 (212)).
Though teaching all of the above, Lind ‘127 does not teach:
wherein the fabric data includes a fabric type selected from a predefined set including 2-way knit, woven, woven with Lycra, and non-woven, or,
where generating the representation of the garment comprises generating a semi-transparent overlay as part of the representation.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the formatting of the clause wherein the fabric data includes a fabric type selected from a predefined set including 2-way knit, woven, woven with Lycra, and non-woven sets forth “a fabric type” (singular) that is “selected from” a “predefined set” (closed group) of alternatives including “2-way knit, woven, woven with Lycra, and non-woven”. As constructed, this clause represents a Markush grouping as discussed in MPEP 2117, and has been interpreted as such.
Notably, Lind ‘127 does disclose selection of a fabric type (e.g., Fig. 1 (94)), and the types of alternative fabrics were well-known in the art.
To this accord, Sights teaches a design tool for garment design, the garments comprising known fabric types including woven fabric (see: 0099, 0113-0115) as well as a garment representation comprising a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation (see: Fig. 39, 0182-0183, 0240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lind ‘127 to have utilized the known technique for garment design as taught by Sights in order to have enabled photorealistic preview in two or three dimensions and provided a technique for finishing garments that reduced environmental impact, processing time, and processing costs while maintaining the look and style of traditional finishing techniques (see: Sights: 0008-0009, 0013).
Lastly, Lind ‘127 does not teach automatically performing, by the client device, a compatibility check based on the selected fabric type and the sewing pattern data.
To this accord, Prasad teaches a method for configuring products including identification of compatible and incompatible configuration options (see: abstract), the method including automatically performing, by the client device, a compatibility check based on configuration option(s) of a product being configured (e.g., a load control device) (see: 0046, 0065, 0083-0084 Fig. 3D (340), Fig. 5 (510-512)). Notably, Prasad does teach an option type comprising fabric (e.g., 0049-0051, 0053, 0060, Fig. 3A-3C (316)).
It would have been obvious to have applied the known technique of performing a compatibility check of configuration options (including fabric type) as taught by Prasad to the known types of configuration options (e.g., sewing pattern, fabric type) in Lind ’127 in order to have warned a user of incompatible selections and provided a message indicating the reasons that the selections are incompatible, thereby increasing the efficiency of designing a product (see: Prasad: 0010, 0065).
2. The fashion design assistant method of claim 1, the generating further comprising graphically processing a first image defined within the sewing pattern data and a second image defined within the fabric data to generate the representation of the garment (see: Sights: 0010-0011, 0169, 0178 (fabric template image), 0189 (image of damage)), 0213 (base template image, adjusted base template image), 0216 (revers or negative image of the laser input file), 0201, 0233, 0238, 0243, 0247, Fig. 38, Fig. 43, Fig. 45).
3. The fashion design assistant method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the fabric is unsuitable for the garment when a preferred fabric type defined by the sewing pattern data does not match a fabric type defined by the fabric data, and displaying a notification on the client device to indicate that the fabric is unsuitable (see: Prasad: 0046, 0065, 0083-0084 Fig. 3D (340), Fig. 5 (510-512)).
4. The fashion design assistant method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, at the client device, a plurality of selectable pattern data (see: Lind ‘127: Fig. 1 & Fig. 9 (60-64), Fig. 3, 0030).
6. The fashion design assistant method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, at the client device, a plurality of selectable fabric data (see: Lind ‘127: Fig. 1 & Fig. 9 (94-102), Fig. 4, 0031).
Regarding claims 8-11 and 13 (non-transitory medium), claims 8-11, and 13 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-4 and 6 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, and 11 above, and further in view of PTO form 892-U (herein Harts Fabric).
Regarding claim 5 and parallel claim 12, Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad discloses all of the above as noted but does not disclose interacting, via the client device, with a pattern supplier corresponding to the pattern selection to facilitate purchase of the pattern data.
To this accord, Harts Fabric teaches an online site that connects shoppers with pattern companies and fabric vendors including interacting, via the client device, with a pattern supplier corresponding to the pattern selection to facilitate purchase of the pattern data (see: p. 4 (1), p. 4 (note listed companies ‘100 Acts of Sewing”, Alina Design Co., etc.), p. 5 (1-5), p. 6 (1), p. 6-16 (shows “Items 1-36 of 54” offered for sale)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad to have enabled direct shopping for patterns from pattern vendors as taught by Harts Fabric in order to have offered a variety of hand-selected patterns from multiple designers and manufacturers, thereby providing a top-notch selection for online shopping (see: Harts Fabric: p. 1 (1)
Regarding claim 7 and parallel claim 14, the combination further teaches the fashion design assistant method of claim 6, further comprising interacting, via the client device, with a fabric supplier corresponding to the fabric selection to facilitate purchase of the fabric (see: Harts Fabric: p. 1 (cart), p. 6 (cart), p. 6-16 (depict various patterns for purchase), p. 18 (1-2), p. 19 (1)).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Penov (US 2013/0258117).
Regarding claim 19, Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein the client device is further configured to guide a user, via the display, to capture an image of a fabric at a predetermined distance to ensure a representative of the fabric image for visualization.
In the field of product investigation, Penov teaches wherein the client device is further configured to guide a user, via the display, to capture an image of a fabric at a predetermined distance to ensure a representative of the fabric image for visualization (see: 0015 (provide an outline or other orientation guide of a type of object to provide the user with a sense of the relative direction and distance the user should be from the object), 0039 (prompting the customer to capture images of items from a specific distance), 0050 (distance sensor), Fig. 9 (904)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad to have enabled guiding image capture as taught by Penov in order to have assisted or guided users when capturing images to produce more accurate matching results during item investigation (see: Penov: 0015).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Koh (US 2018/0049498).
Regarding claim 20, Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad teaches all of the above as noted including wherein the client device provides a toolkit including:
a measurement tool for capturing and storing multiple measurement sets associated with different users or images (see: Lind ‘127: 0034-0038, Fig. 1 (175), Fig. 6).
The combination, however, does not teach a recommendation tool for suggesting compatible fabrics or patterns based on the selected pattern or the selected fabric.
To this accord, Koh teaches a garment design system including a recommendation tool for suggesting compatible fabrics or patterns based on the selected pattern or the selected fabric (see: 0097-0098, Fig. 4B-4C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lind ‘127 in view of Sights and Prasad to have utilized the known technique for recommending fabrics as taught by Koh in order to have automatically delivered highly relevant and personalized style recommendations (see: Koh: 0003).
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Though rejected on other grounds, claims 15-18 are indicated as allowable over the prior art. The following is a statement for the reasons of indication allowability over the prior art:
Claim 15 recites a system configured for a specific combination of functions that is not rendered obvious over the prior art. This includes:
a pattern interface that causes the computer server to interact with a sewing pattern supplier to receive sewing pattern data having technical drawings,
a fabric interface that causes the computer server to interact with a fabric supplier to receive fabric data including a fabric type selected from a predefined set including 2-way knit, woven, woven with Lycra, and non-woven,
automatically perform a compatibility check based on the selected fabric type and the sewing pattern data, and,
generate, based on the sewing pattern selection and the fabric selection, a representation of the garment made from the fabric, wherein generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation.
Though Lindt ‘127 discloses receiving pattern and fabric selections, Lind ‘127 does not provide a pattern interface that causes the computer server to interact with a sewing pattern supplier to receive sewing pattern data having technical drawings, nor does Lind ‘127 disclose a fabric interface that causes the computer server to interact with a fabric supplier to receive fabric data including a fabric type selected from a predefined set including 2-way knit, woven, woven with Lycra, and non- woven. Notably, these are distinct from the fashion design assistant tool, which is leveraged similarly to claim 1 and 8 to facilitate client-driven selections as opposed to suppler-driven interaction (including reception of specific data from suppliers).
Notably, Gillette was previously discussed as teaching a pattern interface as well as a fabric interface, respectively enabling interactions with patter suppliers and fabric suppliers. While Gillette may remedy this deficiency, other deficiencies persist. Namely, neither Lind ‘127 nor Gillette teach generating comprises processing the technical drawing to generate a semi-transparent overlay combined with a fabric image to form the representation, or, automatically perform a compatibility check based on the selected fabric type and the sewing pattern data. Furthermore, the Examiner emphasizes the discussion of compatibility in 0039, 0046 which indicates that compatibility refers to whether fabric properties (e.g., fabric type such as stretch, non-stretch, woven, etc., weight or flow, fabric width) suitable for use with a particular pattern (i.e., compatibility as claimed is distinct from a fashion compatibility such as “compatible” colors, matching shoes or the like, and refers to functional properties of the fabric).
As discussed above with respect to claim 1 and 8, Sights and Prasad teach these features; however, the Examiner holds that the combination of Lind ‘127, Gillette, Sights and Prasad would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed above – i.e., the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole. The totality of the evidence – even in considering the combination of Lindt ‘127, Sights, Prasad and Gillette - fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand – including that of Lindt ‘127, Sights, Prasad and Gillette - to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nilsson (US 20230144574) discloses a compatibility check between fabrics, colors and thread (see: 0102, Fig. 65)
Jacobs (US 20200342146) discloses design system that performs a compatibility check (see: 0022-0023) and is applicable to apparel designers choosing compatible material or fabrics (see: 0064)
Vosseller (US 2023/0109574) discloses guiding a user to move closer during image capture for creating product records (see: Fig. 3C-3D, 0064)
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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights