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 . 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is required but has not been filed. A certified English translation is necessary due to the presence of at least one intervening reference that could otherwise be relied upon in a future rejection.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome a rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Applicant is advised that a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. Failure to provide a certified translation would result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the modules in claim 11, specifically “collection module,” “start module,” and “try-on module.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-10 and 13 are directed to a process and claims 11 and 12 are directed to machines (an apparatus and a device, respectively). All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“in response to a triggering operation on collection controls correspondingly associated with at least two articles, adding the at least two articles to a collection list, the collection controls being displayed on a video playing page; in response to a triggering operation of entering the collection list, starting a terminal camera, so as to enter a try-on page, a user target part shot by the camera being displayed in the try-on page; and in response to a first triggering operation on a try-on control associated with a first article, wearing a first model of the first article on the target part, wherein the try-on control is displayed in the try-on page, and the first triggering operation is used for determining to select the first article from the at least two articles.” Claim 1.
With recited additional elements highlighted and reserved for consideration under step 2A prong two, a careful analysis of the remaining limitations above, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional element in all present claims is a terminal camera. This additional element has been considered individually and in combination with the functions it performs, e.g., the terminal camera takes an image of a target part of a user, presumably a body part, that is displayed in the try-on page. The try-on page is recited only in the abstract as it is not embodied within any recited additional element, though for present purposes it will be understood as being displayed on the “terminal camera” (“terminal camera” therefore being interpreted as both a display terminal and a camera). This is the only recited act or function of the terminal camera and it is merely the performance of a generic activity that any camera must perform in order to be considered a camera. Claim 11 further includes a “data interaction apparatus” comprising the modules discussed previously under Claim Interpretation. These elements in accord with the specification are understood as a computer and programming code. Claim 12 more directly claims one or more processors and a storage apparatus storing programs that “when executed” by the processor cause implementation of the claimed method. Claims 11 and 12 both therefore only add generic computer elements executing code that broadly and generally performs the method. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims are otherwise entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Claimed elements that are not abstract are identified as generic devices broadly and generally applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended functional results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular functional acts or specific functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
It is noted here that the terminal camera as claimed above merely performs the generic function of all cameras. This is not considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is part of the abstract idea itself, however it is noted that using a camera or cameras to capture images as part of an overall apparatus or method was held to be insignificant extra-solution activity, well-understood, routine, and conventional, and/or at least insufficient to support eligibility in several precedential court decisions. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014);and Gaelco S.A. v. Arachnid 360, No. 2018‐1469, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32082 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2018). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sparse additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, and 13 do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the identification and manipulation of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one."). Claims 7 and 10 recite “a terminal screen recording function to record a terminal screen so as to obtain a recorded video,” and “closing the terminal screen recording function, so as to stop the recording of a terminal screen,” respectively. These are recitations of additional steps recited only as performed by the previously recited generic camera device and they are considered part of the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it,” as explained above). In addition, and in addition to the precedents noted above, generating video was determined to be merely collecting, organizing, and displaying information using conventional elements. See W. View Research v. Audi Ag, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6703.
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
***Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 11, and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI (CN 109544695 A) in view of ZHANG et al. (CN 110611849 A).
Li teaches a virtual video try-on method using a terminal camera, and discloses pertaining to
Claim 1. A data interaction method, comprising: ● in response to a triggering operation on collection controls correspondingly associated with at least two articles, adding the at least two articles to a collection list, the collection controls being displayed on a video playing page (see at least Li p.4:14-20 “select a desired purchase wedding style, click add shopping " button under the page, page colour classification and size classification of the option to finish the two item selection,” p.7:16-21 “clicking the "store" button below the page, this style can be added to cache, at the same time, … click add shopping " button under the page, page colour classification and size classification of the option to finish the two item selection”).
Li teaches all of the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) collection controls, b) at least two items added to a collection list, c) controls and items displayed on a video playing page, and d) a virtual try-on page, but does not explicitly disclose in response to a triggering operation of entering the collection list, starting a terminal camera, so as to enter a try-on page, a user target part shot by the camera being displayed in the try-on page.
Zhang also teaches a) collection controls, b) at least two items added to a collection list, c) controls and items displayed on a video playing page, and d) a virtual try-on page, and further discloses
● in response to a triggering operation of entering the collection list, starting a terminal camera, so as to enter a try-on page, a user target part shot by the camera being displayed in the try-on page (see at least Zhang abstract “the remote control device is detected through the special key after triggering the split screen instruction, … detecting whether there is the current playing peripheral associated with the commodity … then displaying merchandise peripheral information in the second sub picture; C, judge that the commodity displayed in the current second sub-picture is clothes or not, if yes, then further judging whether it receives the user virtual fitting instructions, if received, starts the camera to virtual try on,” p.3¶¶6-8 “starts the camera to virtual try on … comprises … starting the camera scanning the human, obtaining information of human body height and body; S2. the user selected clothing adaptive analog fitting human body, generating current body of simulation fitting picture”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Li to include in response to a triggering operation of entering the collection list, starting a terminal camera, so as to enter a try-on page, a user target part shot by the camera being displayed in the try-on page, as taught by Zhang 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Zhang in the method of Li. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Li in view of Zhang further discloses
● in response to a first triggering operation on a try-on control associated with a first article, wearing a first model of the first article on the target part, wherein the try-on control is displayed in the try-on page, and the first triggering operation is used for determining to select the first article from the at least two articles (see at least Zhang p.3¶¶8-9 “S2. the user selected clothing adaptive analog fitting human body, generating current body of simulation fitting picture; S3. converting the analog test clothes picture in the second sub-picture display for the user to check the fitting effect; if the user is not satisfied clothes fitting effect, can … try other dress goods”. S2 indicates the user trying on the first article and S3 indicates additional articles.).Claim 2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ● in response to a triggering operation on an acquisition control associated with the first article, displaying an acquisition page of the first article, thereby enabling the user to acquire the first article based on the acquisition page, the acquisition control being displayed in the try-on page (see at least Zhang p.2:¶1 “after receiving the user confirming purchase instruction of the commodity, pop-up reminding user scanning two dimensional code payment to finish the commodity to purchase”).Claim 3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ● in response to a triggering operation on an attribute identifier associated with the first article, utilizing a second model of the first article matched with the attribute identifier to replace the first model to be worn on the target part (see at least Li abstract “invention has smooth changing process in the process can load the fashion show video corresponding fashion, can replace the fabric material so that the user can visually experience some small differences between the fashion shell fabric”).Claim 4. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ● in response to a preset operation on a preset area in the try-on page, displaying the associated information of a second article by means of a curved surface interface in the preset area, the preset operation being used for determining the selected second article from the at least two articles (see at least Li p.3¶3 “wedding dresses sub-system comprises a brand selection subsystem, category selection subsystem,” p.4¶2 “click shooting sub-system of the collection subsystem, select a desired purchase wedding style, clicking the "store" button below the page, this style can be added to cache, … select a desired purchase wedding style, click add shopping button under the page, page colour classification and size classification of the option to finish the two item selection”. Please note: the “curved surface interface” as described in the specification appears only to be a display of information surrounded by a box with curved boundary lines, a simple style choice directed only to nonfunctional appearance of a display image. Applicant should note that the description of the curved surface as claimed is nonfunctional descriptive information because it has no functional role in the method. Descriptive material that has no functional role in the method will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). MPEP 2111.05. The rationale behind the printed matter cases has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art. Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, in such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See Praxair Distrib. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12707, 2018 WL 2224150 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018); In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010); MPEP 2111.05.).Claim 5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the associated information of the second article comprises at least one of the following: ● an image of the second article, value information of the second article, a try-on control of the second article, and an acquisition control of the second article (see at least Li p.5¶1 “click the corresponding clothing item page after page,” in view of Zhang p.3¶¶8-9 “S2. the user selected clothing adaptive analog fitting human body, generating current body of simulation fitting picture; S3. converting the analog test clothes picture in the second sub-picture display for the user to check the fitting effect,” p.4¶4 “the commodity peripheral information at least including commodity picture, name, type, price, purchase link”. Please note: although disclosed in the prior art, which clearly intends for each article to be addressed similarly in the process, it is also examiner's position that this recitation is merely the repetition of a step (or duplication of parts) to achieve the same result as previously achieved. Such repetition has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to repeat the same step to achieve the same desired result.).Claim 6. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ● in response to a triggering operation on a deletion control associated with the first article, controlling the first article to be removed from the collection list (see at least Li p.5¶4 “the shopping item can also be deleted”).
Rejection of independent claim 11 is based on the same rationale for combining Li and Zhang as noted above under the detailed rationale for the rejection of independent claim 1. In addition Li in view of Zhang teaches, pertaining toClaim 11. A data interaction apparatus, comprising: ● a collection module, configured to in response to a triggering operation on collection controls correspondingly associated with at least two articles, add the at least two articles to a collection list, the collection controls being displayed on a video playing page (see at least Li p.4:14-20 “select a desired purchase wedding style, click add shopping " button under the page, page colour classification and size classification of the option to finish the two item selection,” p.7:16-21 “clicking the "store" button below the page, this style can be added to cache, at the same time, … click add shopping " button under the page, page colour classification and size classification of the option to finish the two item selection”).
Li teaches all of the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) collection controls, b) at least two items added to a collection list, c) controls and items displayed on a video playing page, and d) a virtual try-on page, but does not explicitly disclose in response to a triggering operation of entering the collection list, starting a terminal camera, so as to enter a try-on page, a user target part shot by the camera being displayed in the try-on page.
Zhang also teaches a) collection controls, b) at least two items added to a collection list, c) controls and items displayed on a video playing page, and d) a virtual try-on page, and further discloses
● a start module, configured to in response to a trigger operation of entering the collection list, start a terminal camera, so as to enter a try-on page, a user target part shot by the camera being displayed in the try-on page (see at least Zhang abstract “the remote control device is detected through the special key after triggering the split screen instruction, … detecting whether there is the current playing peripheral associated with the commodity … then displaying merchandise peripheral information in the second sub picture; C, judge that the commodity displayed in the current second sub-picture is clothes or not, if yes, then further judging whether it receives the user virtual fitting instructions, if received, starts the camera to virtual try on,” p.3¶¶6-8 “starts the camera to virtual try on … comprises … starting the camera scanning the human, obtaining information of human body height and body; S2. the user selected clothing adaptive analog fitting human body, generating current body of simulation fitting picture”); and ● a try-on module, configured to in response to a first triggering operation on a try-on control associated with the first article, wear a first model of the first article on the target part, wherein the try-on control is displayed in the try-on page, and the first triggering operation is used for determining to select the first article from the at least two articles (see at least Zhang p.3¶¶8-9 “S2. the user selected clothing adaptive analog fitting human body, generating current body of simulation fitting picture; S3. converting the analog test clothes picture in the second sub-picture display for the user to check the fitting effect; if the user is not satisfied clothes fitting effect, can … try other dress goods”. S2 indicates the user trying on the first article and S3 indicates additional articles.).
Rejection of independent claim 13 is based on the same rationale for combining Li and Zhang as noted above under the detailed rationale for the rejection of independent claim 1. In addition Li in view of Zhang teaches, pertaining toClaim 13. A non-transient computer readable storage medium, storing a computer program thereon, wherein the program, when executed by at least one processor, implements the method according to claim 1 (see at least Li p.2¶4 “software”. Please see the detailed rationale found under claim 1 for prior art disclosure of the method according to claim 1.).
Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI (CN 109544695 A) in view of ZHANG et al. (CN 110611849 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mishra et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0178821 A1).
Li in view of Zhang teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) collection controls, b) at least two items added to a collection list, c) controls and items displayed on a video playing page, and d) a virtual try-on page, but does not explicitly disclose in response to a target operation, starting a terminal screen recording function to record a terminal screen so as to obtain a recorded video.
Mishra also teaches a) collection controls, b) at least two items added to a collection list, c) controls and items displayed on a video playing page, and d) a virtual try-on page, and further discloses, pertaining to
Claim 7. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ● in response to a target operation, starting a terminal screen recording function to record a terminal screen so as to obtain a recorded video (see at least Mishra ¶0025 “recording natural movements of the online shopper and saving the natural movements on a user video profile database”); and ● in response to a triggering operation on a release control, releasing the recorded video as a work (see at least Li p.7 ”can view the recording in our shopping trolley” in view of Mishra ¶0061 “posting the try-on videos on social media sites to obtain feedback”).
Li in view of Zhang and further in view of Mishra discloses
Claim 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the target operation comprises a triggering operation on the try-on control and/or a triggering operation on the collection control (see at least Zhang abstract “the remote control device is detected through the special key after triggering the split screen instruction, … detecting whether there is the current playing peripheral associated with the commodity … then displaying merchandise peripheral information in the second sub picture; C, judge that the commodity displayed in the current second sub-picture is clothes or not, if yes, then further judging whether it receives the user virtual fitting instructions, if received, starts the camera to virtual try on,” p.3¶¶6-8 “starts the camera to virtual try on … comprises … starting the camera scanning the human, obtaining information of human body height and body; S2. the user selected clothing adaptive analog fitting human body, generating current body of simulation fitting picture”. Please note: The claim language and/or does not result in further limitation beyond a single alternative because beyond the presence of any single alternative it merely represents contingencies that are not required. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2111.04 "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.").).Claim 9. The method according to claim 7, wherein the recorded video comprises the try-on control (see at least Mishra abstract “step of combining the user video profile for the online shopper with the product video profile corresponding to the selected product to create a user try-on video”); and the method further comprises: ● in response to a triggering operation on the try-on control in the recorded video, entering the try-on page of an associated article (see at least Mishra abstract “step of combining the user video profile for the online shopper with the product video profile corresponding to the selected product to create a user try-on video”).Claim 10. The method according to claim 7, wherein after the terminal screen recording function is started, and the method further comprises: ● in response to a triggering operation on an acquisition control, closing the terminal screen recording function, so as to stop the recording of a terminal screen (see at least ¶0063 “If the consumer does not accept the profile, the method will revert to step 422 to attempt to create the profile again”).
Rejection of independent claim 12 is based on the same rationale for combining Li and Zhang as noted above under the detailed rationale for the rejection of independent claim 1, and is further based on the same rationale for combining Li, Zhang, and Mishra as noted above under the detailed rationale for the rejection of claim 7. In addition Li in view of Zhang, and further in view of Mishra teaches, pertaining to
Claim 12. An electronic device, comprising: ● one or more processors (see at least Mishra ¶0043 “the functions are performed by at least one processor, such as a computer or an electronic data processor, digital signal processor or embedded micro-controller”); and ● a storage apparatus for storing one or more programs (see at least Mishra ¶0049 “a program storage device”); wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a data interaction method, comprising: ● in response to a triggering operation on collection controls correspondingly associated with at least two articles, adding the at least two articles to a collection list, the collection controls being displayed on a video playing page (see at least Li p.4:14-20 “select a desired purchase wedding style, click add shopping " button under the page, page colour classification and size classification of the option to finish the two item selection,” p.7:16-21 “clicking the "store" button below the page, this style can be added to cache, at the same time, … click add shopping " button under the page, page colour classification and size classification of the option to finish the two item selection”); ● in response to a triggering operation of entering the collection list, starting a terminal camera, so as to enter a try-on page, a user target part shot by the camera being displayed in the try-on page (see at least Zhang abstract “the remote control device is detected through the special key after triggering the split screen instruction, … detecting whether there is the current playing peripheral associated with the commodity … then displaying merchandise peripheral information in the second sub picture; C, judge that the commodity displayed in the current second sub-picture is clothes or not, if yes, then further judging whether it receives the user virtual fitting instructions, if received, starts the camera to virtual try on,” p.3¶¶6-8 “starts the camera to virtual try on … comprises … starting the camera scanning the human, obtaining information of human body height and body; S2. the user selected clothing adaptive analog fitting human body, generating current body of simulation fitting picture”); and ● in response to a first triggering operation on a try-on control associated with a first article, wearing a first model of the first article on the target part, wherein the try-on control is displayed in the try-on page, and the first triggering operation is used for determining to select the first article from the at least two articles (see at least Zhang p.3¶¶8-9 “S2. the user selected clothing adaptive analog fitting human body, generating current body of simulation fitting picture; S3. converting the analog test clothes picture in the second sub-picture display for the user to check the fitting effect; if the user is not satisfied clothes fitting effect, can … try other dress goods”. S2 indicates the user trying on the first article and S3 indicates additional articles.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Li in view of Zhang to include in response to a target operation, starting a terminal screen recording function to record a terminal screen so as to obtain a recorded video, as taught by Mishra 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Mishra in the method of Li in view of Zhang. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● HSU, TW M503623 U: teaches a camera taking images of a user for try-on and simple video presentations of virtual try-on image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 January 8, 2026