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 claims priority as a 371 to International Patent Application PCT/GB2022/000057 filed on May 5, 2022, which claims priority to GB 2106435.7, filed on May 5, 2021, and GB 2110359.3, filed on July 19, 2021
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been received in the file as of 11/1/2023.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings submitted on contain improper shading such that the depicted elements are unclear and such that the shading may affect clarity once reproduced (see: Fig. 3-7).
Applicant’s response in the Remarks filed 12/1/2025 stating that the figures “are necessary to demonstrate the nature of these aspects of the user interface” is acknowledged; however, this does not remedy the clarity issues of the figures themselves. Applicant may file clear replacement drawings to address the objection. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). Any replacement sheet of drawings shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing.
Claims Status
Claims 5 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-23 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
I. Applicant arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) are acknowledged. In view of these remarks and the accompanying amendment, the rejection is overcome.
II. Applicant arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been considered and are persuasive in part.
With respect to the rejection in regards to the term “animated”, this rejection is overcome by Applicant’s remarks, which clearly define the scope of animated models as models that comprise a sequence of images used to depict motion performed by the model over time (i.e., a model that is moving). This interpretation is adopted for the recited animated composite models and moving within a range of motion defined by the motion descriptor. The rejection withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection for lack of antecedent for “the view and/or pose”, this rejection is overcome by amendment and is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of “substantial view and/or pose correlation” (formerly claim 5), these arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained. Although Applicant discusses this on page 8 and similarly on page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant’s specification does not allow one of ordinary skill in the art itself to understand the scope of having a substantial correlation may be.
While Applicant seemingly attempts to clarify that the phrasing “substantial view and/or pose correlation” is indicative of a same view or pose at a same time or position, the claims do not define the terms as such. Further, although the specification supports an embodiment that indicates a same time/position, the specification does not define the terms substantial correlation in relation to any standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of what is considered a “substantial correlation”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
While the Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s citations of the specification, this is not tantamount to providing sufficient disclosure so as to clearly delineate the scope of a “substantial correlation”. That is, having a substantial view and/or pose correlation (as calimed) does not necessitate the same view and/or pose, and in fact implies a broader scope such that substantial may encompass both the same view/pose or a view/pose that only correlates to some degree. This stems from the plain meaning of the term “substantial”, which is understood as indicating:
“to a large degree” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/substantially
“being largely but not wholly that which is specified” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial)
The distinction between “substantial” and “same” is indeed echoed by Applicant’s own disclosure on p. 15:
“This is achieved by determining a match or close correlation between the view and pose of a current frame being displayed as part of a first render”.
The phrasing “a match or close correlation” further indicates a distinction between one that has a “substantial correlation” (i.e., close correlation) and one that is a “match” (i.e., same). Here again, the specification also fails to set forth a standard by which a correlation may be considered “close” (as opposed to an actual match).
As such, the Examiner maintains the rejection because (i) the term “substantial” is not synonymous with the term “same” or “match”, (ii) “substantial” correlation is a relative term or term of degree, and (iii) the terms are 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.
III. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 for claiming non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant points to Fig. 1 as depicting a server; however, the servers depicted are nothing more than black boxes within the figure. They do nothing to disclose or otherwise demonstrate a specific hardware implementation of the servers. The same is true for the “application hosting platform”, which the Examiner also emphasizes does not appear in the claim.
Concerning the now recite “user interface of a user device”, while the user device is considered hardware/structural, the device does not form a structural element of the system itself as recited. That is, the device (and interface) are only passively recited in reference to what the system is used for, but the claim does not require the system to comprise the device. As established in the previous rejection, a “server” is understood in the art as “a computer program or device” (https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/server), or alternatively “a specialized computer or software system designed to provide services, data, or resources to other computers” (https://www.serverwatch.com/guides/what-is-a-server/). Neither the claims nor the specification limits the scope of the term “server” such that it does not encompass software per se. Accordingly, the BRI of a “server” encompasses both computers/devices and software/programs.
IV. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As claimed, the implementation of the switching operation responsively causing switching between renders is sufficient to at least integrate any recited exception into a practical application. This bears at least some semblance to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), and seeks to provide a specific mechanism for controlling how content is rendered in response to a switching operation. See also Applicant’s Specification, page 15. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
V. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Examiner initially acknowledges Applicant’s discussion of the claimed invention, and recognized in particular the commentary on p. 12-14. Although the Examiner appreciates the distinction Applicant attempts to draw in the claimed invention and the prior art, the Examiner maintains the rejection as updated below. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). That is, the claims recite a much broader version of what Applicant attempts to limit the claimed invention to in the remarks. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This is most notably true for the comments regarding a “naïve switching between renders”, and “determining the position within the sequence of frames of Render A at the time that the switching user interaction is received, and plays Render B from a corresponding position such that visual continuity is maintained”. Ass currently written, the claims do not reflect these elements in a way that limits them to Applicant’s imported interpretation. Instead, the Examiner notes that Liang does teach the claimed invention. For example, Liang disclose wherein each render comprises a sequence of frames, at least one frame being registered with the view and/or pose of the animated composite model such as by teaching that the request is for a body model to include a series of frames or a specific number of frames and having a library of stored models, simulations and movement patterns including pre-staged movement and simulation data that can be transmitted frame by frame (see: col. 6 lines 9-21, col. 12 lines 26-28, col. 17 lines 20-22 & 46-49, col. 26 lines 61-65).
Liang also discloses the user interface being configured to receive the switching user interaction (see: col. 8 lines 14-19, col. 9 lines 4-11, col. 13 lines 44-48), and in response switch between renders at a position in their respective frame sequences that have substantial view and/or pose correlation (see: col. 12 lines 42-46, col. 13 lines 44-48, col. 22 line 63-col. 23 line 4). Notably, a change request (user switching interaction) associated with raising the arm results in a view or pose of the model having a raised arm but the head not moving. This may be understood as switching between renders that have “substantial” correlation in view or pose because “substantial” correlation does not necessitate that same view or pose.
In the other hand, the change request may be one in which the user requests some kind of change associated with the item – e.g., a short-sleeved dress be modified to a long-sleeve dress (see: col. 13 lines 44-48). Fig. 5A-Fig. 5C illustrate particular changes to the item, including a change request adjusting either the sleeve length (from short to long - 508) or fit (from loose to fitted - 510). As can be seen in Fig. 5A-5B, the sleeve length is adjusted while the view and/or pose remains the same. Similarly, From Fig. 5B-5C, the fit is adjusted but the view and/or pose remains the same. Accordingly, in the instance the change request relates to the item itself, the view and/or pose provided after the change request is “substantially” correlated to the view/pose prior to the change request.
Here again, the Examiner emphasizes that the claimed invention does has not further limited the switching interaction in any manner, while Applicant’s arguments seek to import limitations from the specification that have not been claimed.
Furthermore, it is noted that the phrasing thereby minimising the visual discontinuity of switching is nothing more than an intended use or result that fails to result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, and thus fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Even assuming arguendo this were not true (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), Liang appears to disclose at least relevant features by emphasizing providing a real-time experience where simulation of the model is performed quickly, essentially in real-time and on a frame by frame basis “picking up where the last frame was received from the server” (see: col. 22 lines 4-9, col. 15 lines 24-26).
In view of the above, the rejection over Liang has been maintained. The Examiner also draws Applicant’s attention to the Sample Amendment provided below, the sample amendment attempting to incorporate subject matter argued by the Applicant but is not adequately reflected in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “…renders at a position in their respective frame sequences that have substantial view and/or pose correlation, thereby minimising the visual discontinuity of switching”. It is unclear what a “substantial view and/or pose correlation” indicates. The term “substantial” and “correlate” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are 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. (Also see the relevant discussion above under Response to Amendment/Arguments).
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-21, these claims depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies discussed above. As such, claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-21 are rejected herein.
Regarding claim 22 and 23, these claims parallel the limitations and scope of claim 1 and are rejected for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Software Per Se
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 1-4, 6-7 and 9-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites a “computer-implemented” system comprising “a virtual model server”. As understood in the art, a “server” is understood as “a computer program or device” (https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/server), “a specialized computer or software system designed to provide services, data, or resources to other computers” (https://www.serverwatch.com/guides/what-is-a-server/). That is, the BRI of a “server” encompasses both computers/devices and software/programs.
The specification provides no specific definition of server, nor does the specification provide any description of or figures depicting specific hardware components of the server.
Accordingly, the BRI of the claimed “server” encompasses software per se. A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Lastly, the mere recitation of the user device is not sufficient because the claim is directed to the server itself and it’s functionality in relation to the user device, but does not positively recite the device as part of the system.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-21, these claims depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies discussed above. As such, claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-21 are rejected herein.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 23 directs itself only to a “computer program”, which is software per se. The fact that the program is executable on “at least one of a virtual model server, a retailer server, and a user device” does not set forth further structural elements that move beyond software per se. Further, the function of “configures the at least one virtual model server, retailer server, and user device” speaks only to the intended result of the execution, and again fails to set forth the server/device as structural components.
Moreover, as discussed above, the term “server” does not cure this deficiency (even assuming arguendo the server is positively recited – which the Examiner does not acquiesce).
Lastly, there is no indication that the program is otherwise stored on the servers, or on some other non-transitory medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang (US 11,308,687).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a computer-implemented clothing retail system for the display of virtual clothing worn by virtual body models the system comprising a virtual model server (e.g., Fig. 1 (108), Fig. 7, col. 26 lines 33-44 & 59-60) configured to:
receive a display request for displaying on a user device virtual clothing worn by a virtual body model, the request including a reference to a set of clothing models, and a user session identifier that specifies the user device (see: Fig. 2 (210-226), col. 11 lines 5-30, Fig. 6 (620));
generate a set of animated composite models (see: Fig. 2 (232-242), col. 11 lines 30-50, col. 17 lines 46-67, Fig. 5A-5C, Fig. 6A (608), Fig. 6B (626)), each including:
a body model (see: Fig. 2 (224), col. 11 lines 24-28, Fig. 5A (502), Fig. 6A (602), col. 23 lines 39-41, Fig. 6B (620), col. 24 lines 51-54);
one of the referenced set of clothing models (see: Fig. 2 (228-230), col. 11 lines 30-34, Fig. 5A (504), Fig. 6A (604), col. 23 lines 42-44, Fig. 6B (622), col. 24 lines 54-57); and
a motion descriptor (see: Fig. 3 (302, 308-312), Fig. 6A (606), col. 23 lines 47-49, Fig. 6B (624), col. 24 lines 58-59; See also: Fig. 4 (420), Fig. 5A (514));
transmit to the user device specified by the user session identifier, in response to the display request (see: Fig. 6A (610), col. 24 lines 20-27, Fig. 6B (628), col. 24 lines 24 lines 64-65), user interface data configuring a user interface on the user device to:
display renders of the animated composite models, each render depicting a dynamic virtual subject defined by the body model, wearing a clothing model referenced by the request, and moving within a range of motion defined by the motion descriptor (see: Fig. 5A-5C, col. 24 lines 20-27 & 59-65); and
receive a switching user interaction via the user interface to switch between each render (see: col. 3 lines 62-63, col. 8 lines 13-19 & 32-33, col. 14 lines 16-22, col. 16 lines 57-59, col. 17 lines 61-65, col. 19 lines 48-59).
wherein each render comprises a sequence of frames, at least one frame being registered with the view and/or pose of the animated composite (see: col. 6 lines 9-21, col. 12 lines 26-28, col. 17 lines 20-22 & 46-49, col. 26 lines 61-65), the user interface being configured to receive the switching user interaction (see: col. 8 lines 14-19, col. 9 lines 4-11, col. 13 lines 44-48), and in response switch between renders at a position in their respective frame sequences that have substantial view and/or pose correlation, thereby minimising the visual discontinuity of switching (see: col. 12 lines 42-46, col. 13 lines 44-48, col. 19 lines 11-13, col. 22 lines 4-9, col. 22 line 63-col. 23 line 4);
wherein the user interface of the user device comprises a model display region within which renders of virtual subjects are displayed (see: Fig. 3 (116), Fig. 5A-5C (502, 504, 516, 534)), and a control region via which a user can provide control inputs to the user interface, the control region comprising a user interface element for receiving the switching user interaction (see: Fig. 3 (302, 308, 310), Fig. 5A (506-510, 514)).
Note: the phrasing thereby minimising the visual discontinuity of switching is nothing more than an intended use or result that fails to result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, and thus fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See further discussion under Response to Amendment/Arguments.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the set of animated composite models each comprise at least one of a common body model (see: col. 5 line 66-col. 6 line 2, col. 9 lines 60-61) and a common motion descriptor (see: Fig. 3 (302, 308-312), Fig. 6A (606), col. 23 lines 47-49, Fig. 6B (624), col. 24 lines 58-59; See also: Fig. 4 (420), Fig. 5A (514)).
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the generation of the set of animated composite models comprises performing a virtual fitting of clothes represented by set of clothing models, to a virtual subject defined by the body model (see: Fig. 2 (232-236), Fig. 5A-5C, col. 11 lines 22-38).
4. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the body model and the set of clothing models comprise attributes that reflect real-world conditions and behaviour of those models, the attributes including at least one of size and elasticity (see: col. 4 lines 21-25, col. 22 lines 45-51).
6. The system of claim 1, further comprising at least one retailer server configured to provide an electronic commerce retail environment via which a set of clothes can be selected for viewing by user, via a respective user device, user selection of the set of clothes within the electronic commerce retail environment controlling generation of the display request that is sent to the virtual model server, with the reference to a set of clothing models corresponding to the set of user-selected clothes (see: Fig. 2 (206), col. 10 lines 22-26, Fig. 4 (404), col. 11 lines 17-22, col. 18 lines 47-51, col. 23 lines 49-57).
7. The system of claim 6, the retail environment further comprising a clothing ordering interface configured to receive a user order to purchase clothing associated with at least one of the set of clothes displayed (see: Fig. 3 (304, 306), col. 8 lines 20-22, Fig. 5A (512), col. 22 lines 52-53).
9. The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the switching user interaction comprises receiving at least one of user command to change at least one of the size, fabric and style of clothing to be displayed (see: Fig. 3 (long sleeve, loose fit, tight fit), Fig. 5A (506-510), col. 8 lines 24-25, col. 22 lines 40-51).
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the body model that is used to generate the set of animated composite models is dependent on the user session identifier (see: Fig. 2 (214-216, 224), col. 11 lines 24-28, Fig. 5A (502), Fig. 6A (602), col. 23 lines 39-41, Fig. 6B (620), col. 24 lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 22 (method) and claim 23 (computer program), claims 22-23 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 22-23 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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) 11, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Adeyoola (US 20140176565).
Regarding claim 11, Liang discloses all of the above including wherein the virtual model server comprises a plurality of user accounts each having a customised body model associated with it (see: Fig. 2 (208), col. 5 lines 57-60, col. 9 lines 56-59, col. 26 lines 49-51). Liang does not disclose providing access to a user account being dependent on a user providing valid access credentials. Such features were notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
For example, Adeyoola discloses a system for generating and sharing a virtual body model of a person that provides access to a user account being dependent on a user providing valid access credentials (see: 0273-0275).
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 Liang to have utilized the known technique for using credentials to grant access to accounts as taught by Adeyoola in order to have provided secure access to user accounts while providing users an enhanced experience using body models (see: Adeyoola: 0273-0274, 0397, 0626).
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the user interface comprises a body customisation module via which the customised body model can be specified, the body customisation module comprising UI elements for selecting or adjusting the characteristics of the body model, including at least one of height, body clothing size, and/or skin tone (see: Liang: col. 8 lines 34-37, col. 13 lines 51-56, col. 22 lines 53-55; See also Adeyoola: Fig. 19, 0333-0334).
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the UI elements comprise at least one menu for selecting attributes of the body model, and for changing the values of those attributes (see: Liang: col. 8 lines 34-37, col. 13 lines 51-56, col. 22 lines 53-55 & 57-61; See also Adeyoola: Fig. 19, 0333-0334).
15. The system of claim 13, wherein the body customisation module is arranged to receive an image of the face of a user and adapt the customised body model and associated renders so that its face materially matches that of the user (see: Liang: col. 6 lines 7-8, col. 9 lines 63-67; Adeyoola: 0021, 0261, 0281, 0377, Fig. 16).
20. The system of claim 1, wherein the user interface of the user device is configured to display multiple renders simultaneously (see: Adeyoola: 0831, 0971, Fig. 11, 0514).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Chin (US 2003/0212605).
Regarding claims 11-12, Liang discloses all of the above including wherein the virtual model server comprises a plurality of user accounts each having a customised body model associated with it (see: Fig. 2 (208), col. 5 lines 57-60, col. 9 lines 56-59, col. 26 lines 49-51). Liang does not disclose providing access to a user account being dependent on a user providing valid access credentials (claim 11), nor does Liang teach wherein each user account has a unique user session identifier associated with it, the unique user session identifier being provided to the virtual model server as part of a display request originating from a user authorised via access credentials, to access their user account (claim 12). Such features were notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
For example, Chin discloses the known technique of providing access to a user account being dependent on a user providing valid access credentials (see: Fig. 6 (steps 1-2), Fig. 7 (720-730), 0033-0034 (account name, password)) wherein each user account has a unique user session identifier associated with it, the unique user session identifier being provided to a server as part of a request originating from a user authorised via access credentials, to access their user account (see: 0009, 0034, Fig. 6 (steps 5-6), Fig. 7 (770)).
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 Liang to have utilized the known technique for assigning a unique session ID as taught by Chin in order to have prevented the same account from being used simultaneously by different users (see: Chin: 0010).
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Chen (US 20100299616).
Regarding claim 16, Liang discloses all of the above as noted but does not disclose a shared display environment in which the virtual model server receives a sharing request and in response transmits at least part of the user interface data to at least one other user device to enable display of renders of the same composite model on at least two user devices simultaneously.
To this accord, Chen discloses a system comprising a shared display environment in which a server receives a sharing request and in response transmits at least part of the user interface data to at least one other user device to enable display of renders of the same product model on at least two user devices simultaneously (see: Fig. 5, 0052, Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 13, 0017, 0020, 0032, 0041).
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 Liang to have utilized the known technique for collaboration as taught by Chen in order to have enabled the user of Liang to have collaborated with friends or experts during a shopping session (see: 0001, 0003, 0092), thereby enhancing the user experience and enabling users to make a more informed purchasing decisions.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the shared display environment is configured to receive a control input from any of the at least two user devices and in response change the render displayed by those at least two user devices (see: Chen: 0017, 0028, Fig. 7 (708, 712), 0064, Fig. 16 (1602), 0088).
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the shared display environment is configured with a messaging interface via which messages can be transmitted between the at least two user devices (see: Chen: Fig. 7 (710), 0035 (real-time communications, such as instant messaging or peer-to-peer messaging), 0054, 0062).
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the messages are displayed together with renders (see: Chen: Fig. 7 (710), Fig. 8-10 (chat panel)).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Chen as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Adeyoola.
Regarding claim 21, Liang in view of Chen taches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein the multiple renders are displayed simultaneously as part of the shared display environment.
To this accord, Adeyoola teaches wherein the user interface of the user device is configured to display multiple renders simultaneously (see: Adeyoola: 0831, 0971, Fig. 11, 0514), and wherein the multiple renders are displayed simultaneously as part of the shared display environment (see: Adeyoola: 0830-0831, Fig. 8, 0536).
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 Liang in view of Chen to have utilized the known technique for providing a shared display experience providing multiple renders simultaneously as taught by Adeyoola in order to have provided secure access to user accounts while providing users an enhanced experience using body models that enabled invited users to more readily compare different looks (see: Adeyoola: 0273-0274, 0397, 0626).
Sample Amendment
The sample amendment proposed below is offered to assist Applicant in future amendments. The amendment attempts to more accurately claim portions of the specification argued by Applicant that are not yet reflected in the claims. The amendment would advance prosecution by overcoming the rejection under 35 USC 102 (Liang) as well as remedying deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101; however, additional search would be necessary if adopted by applicant in subsequent responses, and new prior art may be applicable. The amendment is as follows:
1. (Currently amended) A computer-implemented clothing retail system for the display of virtual clothing worn by virtual body models on a user interface of a user device, the system comprising the user device and a virtual model server, the system configured to:
receive, by the virtual model server, a display request for displaying on the user device virtual clothing worn by a virtual body model, the request including a reference to a set of clothing models, and a user session identifier that specifies the user device;
generate, by the virtual model server, a set of animated composite models, each including:
a body model;
one of the referenced set of clothing models; and
a motion descriptor;
register, by the virtual model server, a plurality of renders of the animated composite models, each render of the plurality of renders comprising a sequence of a plurality of frames, each frame registered with a view and/or pose of the animated composite model;
transmit, by the virtual model server to the user device specified by the user session identifier, in response to the display request, user interface data that causes the
display a first render of the plurality of renders of the animated composite models, each render depicting a dynamic virtual subject defined by the body model, wearing a clothing model referenced by the request, and moving within a range of motion defined by the motion descriptor; and
receive a switching user interaction via the user interface to switch from the first render to a second render of the plurality of renders, wherein in response to receiving the user device receives the second render from the virtual model server that responsively minimizes display continuity by:
determining a frame of the first render at the time the switching interaction is receive;
determining a match between a view and/or pose of a frame of the second render and the view and/or pose of the frame of the first render; and,
causing the displayed first render to switch to the second render using the matched frame of the second render;
wherein the user interface of the user device comprises a model display region within which renders of virtual subjects are displayed, and a control region via which a user can provide control inputs to the user interface, the control region comprising a user interface element for receiving the switching user interaction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pearson (US 2009/0079743) to Pearson discloses the use of 3D motion data files in animating avatars wearing clothing (see: 0043-0044)
PTO form 892-U discusses using real images of garments in rendering overlays during a virtual try-on session (see: sections 2.2-2.3, 4.4).
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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