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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending per Applicant’s December 5, 2025 filing with the Office. No claims are amended, canceled, added or withdrawn in the filing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
These limitation are not found in the prior art Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, that the user interface is configured to ...accept graphical input regarding the deck, wherein the graphical input comprises a drawing by the user of the deck on a grid displayed on the user interface..." the server is configured to " generate a graphical representation of the deck, the graphical representation based, at least in part, on the drawing..."; and the client computer is configured to generate an augmented view integrating the graphical representation with the video data. Remarks p. 2
Respectfully, Rathod teaches all the claim elements that it was cited to render obvious. Rathod teach “accept graphical input regarding the deck, wherein the graphical input comprises a drawing by the user of the deck on a grid displayed on the user interface” see at least Rathod at [154] “web page, which may appear on a user's monitor, includes a canvas 500 having vertical and horizontal gridlines. Within canvas 500, a user may doodle, sketch or draw a desired component, i.e., "part", that he would like to find, locate, or obtain”. Where Rathod discloses at [4] “all machines, appliances, vehicles, etc. are formed of many component parts such as brackets, fasteners, connectors, frames and other parts . . . the consumer may seek to replace the component part ”
In the case of the instant claimed invention, the specification teaches at [6] “database is operationally connected to the server, with the database comprising parts information regarding a plurality of parts for the deck . . . the graphical input comprising a drawing by the user of the deck . . . the drawing, the deck information, and one or more criteria regarding placement of the parts for the deck”. The disclosure makes clear that the deck is made up of parts. Thus one of ordinary skill in the would understand that the parts of Rathod could be any part including a deck or sub components of the deck.
Rathod teaches the limitation in question of “wherein the graphical input comprises a drawing by the user of the deck on a grid displayed on the user interface” see at least Rathod [98] “a method of creating a database of images of component parts and enabling a user to electronically doodle or draw a component part”. Also see [154] “web page, which may appear on a user's monitor, includes a canvas 500 having vertical and horizontal gridlines. Within canvas 500, a user may doodle, sketch or draw a desired component, i.e., "part"”. Where vertical and horizontal gridlines are the equivalent of a grid display.
Rathod teaches the limitation of " generate a graphical representation of the deck, the graphical representation based, at least in part, on the drawing..." see at least [114] “After the user has doodled to create image 136 of FIG. 6, he may want to look at and refine the input image from a third angle in order to better define the three-dimensional input image for which the search engine will seek a match in the database.” Also see [102] “Images 106 may be listed in order of how closely they match the doodled image”.
It is noted with respect to Applicant’s argument that Rathod does not teach the claimed element of “the client computer is configured to generate an augmented view integrating the graphical representation with the video data” the actual claimed limitation recites “wherein the user interface is further configured to display the augmented view or the list upon request by the user through the user interface”. The actual claimed limitation is made in the alternative therefore only one element need to be present in the art. As cited above with respect to the teaching of Rathod at [102] teaches a list upon request by the user through the user interface.
The Office maintains that the claimed elements in question are taught by the cited art of Rathod. The rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
Wuang does not start with a user drawing an object on a blank canvass. Remarks p. 2-3.
Respectfully, in the previous Office action Wuang was not used to teach a “a user drawing an object on a blank canvass”. Further the elements of the claim, “the client computer comprising a camera for capturing video data” and “wherein the deck information comprises information regarding dimensions and layout of the deck” that Wuang was cited to teach do not involve drawing an object on a blank canvass, but rather the captured video data.
The Office maintains that the claimed elements in question are taught by the cited art of Wuang. The rejection of the previous Office action is maintained.
the Examiner's assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would simply add the features of Wuang to Rathod's method is a conclusion made only with the benefit of hindsight. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art. Remarks p. 3.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod et al (US 2010/0100457 A1) in view of Wuang et al (US 2018/0115719 A1).
Claim 1
Rathod teaches a system for facilitating construction of a deck by a user (Rathod [142] “a networked computer system 236 of the present invention which is suitable for implementing one or more of the methods of the present invention”), the system comprising:
a server (Rathod [142] “System 236 includes a server”);
a database operationally connected to the server, the database comprising parts information regarding a plurality of parts for the deck (Rathod [142] “Server 238 may include . . . an image database”); and
a client computer in communication with the server (Rathod [142] “connected to the Internet 240 are vendor computers . . . connected to the Internet 240 are purchaser computers”), and a display for displaying a user interface (Rathod [144] “monitor 246 may display images”), wherein the user interface is configured to accept textual input from the user regarding deck information (Rathod fig. 48 see “add text to your search”), wherein the user interface is further configured to accept graphical input regarding the deck (Rathod [9] “enabling a user to provide input image data for searching a database of image data. The user may draw, upload, or retrieve from the database an initial view of a part”), wherein the graphical input comprises a drawing by the user of the deck on a grid displayed on the user interface (Rathod [154] “web page, which may appear on a user's monitor, includes a canvas 500 having vertical and horizontal gridlines. Within canvas 500, a user may doodle, sketch or draw a desired component, i.e., "part", that he would like to find, locate, or obtain”); and
wherein the client computer is further configured to transmit the deck information and the drawing to the server (Rathod [9] “a method of enabling a user to provide input image data for searching a database of image data” and [98] “search icon 102 being clicked on, the server hosting the web site may search an electronic database of component images for a component image that most closely resembles or matches the image drawn by the user in canvas”);
wherein the server is configured to generate a graphical representation of the deck, the graphical representation based, at least in part, on the drawing, the deck information, and one or more criteria regarding placement of the parts for the deck (Rathod fig. 39, #250, [102] “web page may provide a list of search results including component images 106. Images 106 may be listed in order of how closely they match the doodled image” and [114] “After the user has doodled to create image 136 of FIG. 6, he may want to look at and refine the input image from a third angle in order to better define the three-dimensional input image for which the search engine will seek a match in the database.”);
wherein the server is further configured to convert the deck information into component information, wherein the component information comprises information regarding one or more of the individual components of the deck (Rathod [138] “supplier may then click on the "Select parts from the standard parts list" link 212 to thereby be taken to the web page of FIG. 32. After selecting one or more of the part categories” and [139] “supplier may then click on the "Select parts from the custom parts list" link 215 to thereby be taken to the web page of FIG. 34. After selecting one or more of the part categories”);
wherein the server is further configured to generate, based at least in part on the component information and the parts information, a list comprising minimum quantities of the parts required for the deck (Rathod [138] “supplier may then click on the "Select parts from the standard parts list" link 212 to thereby be taken to the web page of FIG. 32. After selecting one or more of the part categories” and [139] “supplier may then click on the "Select parts from the custom parts list" link 215 to thereby be taken to the web page of FIG. 34. After selecting one or more of the part categories”);
wherein the server is further configured to transmit the list and the graphical representation to the client computer (Rathod [138] “filling in the fields in FIG. 30, the supplier may click on Submit icon 210 to thereby complete the registration”);
wherein the user interface is configured to display a menu bar on a first portion thereof, the menu bar configured to allow the user to toggle the user interface to display on a second portion thereof between a three-dimensional and a two-dimensional view of the graphical representation, the user interface further configured to allow the user to manipulate the three-dimensional or the two-dimensional views of the graphical representation using touch input on the user interface (Rathod fig. 16c and [155] “After the user has drawn an image on canvas 500 and clicked on search icon 502, the server may respond with a web page having a format similar to that shown in FIG. 49. The web page may provide a list of search results including component images divided between three-dimensional shapes 506 and two-dimensional shapes”); and
wherein the user interface is further configured to display the augmented view or the list upon request by the user through the user interface (Rathod fig. 16c and [155] “After the user has drawn an image on canvas 500 and clicked on search icon 502, the server may respond with a web page having a format similar to that shown in FIG. 49. The web page may provide a list of search results including component images divided between three-dimensional shapes 506 and two-dimensional shapes”, where limitation made in the alternative only one element needs to be present in the art.).
Rathod does not express teach the following claimed limitations that are taught by Wuang in the analogous art of system and method for visualizing a room: the client computer comprising a camera for capturing video data (Wuang [14] “user interface 24 may be a mobile device such as a tablet computer or smart phone . . . user interface 24 may be configured to produce the necessary signals and instructions for the display screen 20 to display a selected image” and [18] “Where the product image 40 is generated by an image capture device, i.e. a camera”) . . . wherein the deck information comprises information regarding dimensions and layout of the deck (Waung [27] “grid tool of the software is used to overlay a grid 64 onto the first image capture equal to the size, in feet/inches, of the display screen. For example, where the sixteen by nine foot display screen 20 is anticipated, the grid 64 would include fifteen equally spaced vertical lines and eight equally spaced horizontal lines. If the scale 62 is correctly sized relative to the grid 64, e.g. a yard stick is equal to three of the boxes created by the grid tool, the set 50 is ready for generating the image file 30. The scale 62 is removed from the field of view V, a second capture is taken without further adjustments to the camera 54 or the furniture piece 16, and the second image capture is stored as the image file 30”, while the example of the prior art uses furniture it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claim deck could be substituted for the furniture),
wherein the client computer is configured to generate an augmented view integrating the graphical representation with the video data (Waung fig. 3 and [27] “The grid tool of the software is used to overlay a grid 64 onto the first image capture equal to the size, in feet/inches, of the display screen”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Rathod the client computer comprising a camera for capturing video data and wherein the deck information comprises information regarding dimensions and layout of the deck; wherein the client computer is configured to generate an augmented view integrating the graphical representation with the video data; as taught by Wuang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2
Rathod in view of Wuang teach all the limitations of the system of claim 1, wherein the database further comprises ordering information, wherein the ordering information comprises information regarding pricing and inventory of each of the plurality of parts (Rathod fig. 29 and [130]).
Claim 3
Rathod in view of Wuang teach all the limitations of the system of claim 2, wherein the server is further configured to generate a price, wherein the price is based, at least in part, on the pricing and the inventory of the parts required for the deck (Rathod [140] and fig. 29).
Claim 4
Rathod in view of Wuang teach all the limitations of the system of claim 1, wherein the user interface is further configured to accept touch input from the user for the graphical input (Rathod [154]).
Claim 5
Rathod in view of Wuang teach all the limitations of the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of parts comprises one or more of the following: railings, pickets, posts, and panels (Rathod fig. 32 and 34).
Claim 6
Rathod in view of Wuang teach all the limitations of the system of claim 1, wherein the user interface is further configured to allow for the user to input changes to the deck information (Rathod [144]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fu et al (US 2021/0012574 A1) teaches the user can select and use desired enhanced tools to create a 3-D AR sketch that augments visual content of a real-world environment captured by the camera with drawing content added by the user using the enhanced tools.
Sharma et al (US 10,033,943 B1) teaches the platform can provide drawing guidance to a user interested in drawing a picture using a writing utensil and a physical medium (e.g., paper) and track that user's progress. In some implementations, the platform may augment a handheld computing device, such as a phone or tablet, with novel hardware accessories to make use of a built-in video camera on the computing device, and utilize novel computer vision algorithms to sense user interaction with the physical drawing.
Neeley et al (US 2013/0155249 A1) teaches a user could use simple drawing tools (such as lines, rectangles, or other shapes) on a PC or available on the camera, via buttons 28, to manually outline objects found in the image, augment lines that form different shapes in the image, or highlight the edges in the image, for example.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623