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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to TW113109076, filed 3/12/2024. The certified copy has been filed in the current application as of 9/30/2024.
Acknowledgement is also made of applicant’s claim to US Provisional Application No. 63/514,566, filed 7/19/2023. This applicant provides only a non-English specification, without separate claims or drawings.
An English translation of the non-English language provisional application and a statement that the translation is accurate must be filed in provisional application No. 63/514,566. See 37 CFR 1.78. The English translation and a statement that the translation is accurate required by 37 CFR 1.78 is missing. Accordingly, applicant must supply 1) the missing English translation and a statement that the translation is accurate in provisional application No. 63/514,566 and 2) in the present application, a confirmation that the translation and statement were filed in the provisional application. If 1) and 2) are not filed (or if the benefit claim is not withdrawn) prior to the expiration of the time period set in this Office action, the present application will be abandoned. See 37 CFR 1.78.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn without travers.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn without traverse.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected.
Objection – Specification
The use of the term “Google Vision API” in paragraphs 0022, 0032, 0096, 0186, 0187, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
The use of the term “AirTag” in paragraphs 0105, 0117, 0122, 0192, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-12, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example:
Claim 1 sets forth various terms that are idiomatic in nature, including:
a method that is “suitable for being performed by a computing device”: it is unclear what makes a method “suitable” for being performed by a computer and how this phrasing distinguishes between suitable or unsuitable methods
“customize a customized choice result by a user”: the grammatical structure is unclear and does not conform to US practice.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies above. Accordingly, they are rejected therewith.
Claim 2 recites a “merchandise change image”: the specification provides no definition or example, and the grammatical structure is idiomatic within the claim.
Claim 3 recites: a merchandise amount: though the term is used throughout the specification, no definition or examples are provided. It is unclear whether this is a fixed price or other value associated with merchandise.
Claim 4 also recites a merchandise amount.
Claims 5-8 depend from claim 4 and inherit the deficiencies above. Accordingly, they are rejected therewith.
Claim 10 recites wherein the image analysis model is Google Vision API. This is a trademark/trade name. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an image recognition model/software and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 11 (computing device) and claim 12 (non-transitory computer-readable recording medium), claims 11-12 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 11-12 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Term Interpretation
For examination purposes, following terms have been forded the interpretations below:
Customized group choice result: the resulting combination of selections made when the merchandise is customized, which may include merchandise information, merchandise change information, designed images or design elements (see: 0079).
Merchandise change information: information that is changed about merchandise, such as an attribute of the merchandise or the type of merchandise (see: 0117, 0122)
Merchandise change image: an image resulting from a change to merchandise
Customized amount: a total price resulting from summing individual amounts such as a merchandise amount, total element amount, etc. (see: 0089, 0127, 0159-0160)
Merchandise amount: a price associated with a merchandise
Total element amount: the sum of corresponding amounts for design elements (see: 0086, 0129, 0159-0160)
New group choice result: a sticker image that has not yet been used as a designed element in the current image (see: 0156-0158)
Sticker group: a group identification code associated to a sticker or stickers (see: 0150, 0155-0156, 0165)
Sticker image: a digital image that may be applied to another image (see: 0150, 0156)
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-12, under Step 2A claims 1-12 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 12 as representative, claim 12 recites a method for customizing an appearance of a merchandise, in order to customize a customized choice result selected by a user, wherein the customized choice result comprises a designed image and merchandise information, the method comprising:
receiving the designed image, wherein the designed image comprises at least one designed element;
receiving the merchandise information;
overlappingly displaying the designed image on a merchandise image corresponding to the merchandise information;
receiving at least one edit operation for the at least one designed element in the designed image; and
editing the at least one designed element in the designed image according to the at least one edit operation, and then generating a customized virtual image.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth and/or describes customizing merchandise appearance by editing design elements of the merchandise. This represents the performance of a marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including suitable for being performed by a computing device and a virtual merchandise image.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements (e.g., a virtual merchandise image) do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, dependent claims 2-10 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-10 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. That is, claims 2-10 rely on at least similar additional elements as discussed in claim 1, which are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further additional elements, such as an image transformation model and performing image transformation (e.g., claims 9-10) are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).Furthermore, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 11 (computing device) and claim 12 (non-transitory computer-readable recording medium), claims 11-12 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 11-12 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sights (US 2023/0051783)
Regarding claim 1, Sights discloses a method for customizing an appearance of a merchandise, suitable for being performed by a computing device in order to customize a customized choice result selected by a user, wherein the customized choice result comprises a designed image and merchandise information, the method comprising:
receiving the designed image, wherein the designed image comprises at least one designed element (see: 0010 (select a finishing pattern), 0224-0225, 0240, 0252-0255, Fig. 30-Fig. 31, Fig. 47 (4515, 4515a-d));
Note: a user selects from patterns, artwork, logos or the like (design images having design elements). Note also 179-0180, Fig. 17 (1722, 1709), 0213, Fig. 27 (2709), which disclose receiving input files (e.g., for laser patterns).
receiving the merchandise information (see:, 0010 (select garment base), 0223, Fig. 28-29 (garments in right column), Fig. 45 (513 Slim Straight Stretch Jeans), );
Note: the user selects from the stored garments associated with the base template image. Note also 0178, Fig. 17 (1716), 0213, Fig. 27 (2707).
overlappingly displaying the designed image on a virtual merchandise image corresponding to the merchandise information (see: 0011-0012, Fig. 39-55);
receiving at least one edit operation for the at least one designed element in the designed image (see: 0234-0239, Fig. 39-44; see also: 0191, 0195, Fig. 18 (1826), Fig. 21); and
editing the at least one designed element in the designed image according to the at least one edit operation, and then generating a customized virtual image (see: 0011, 0013, 0191, 0195, 0227-0228, 0257, Fig. 18, Fig. 21, Fig. 39-44).
Note: as customizations (e.g., adjustments) are made, the preview image is updated to reflect the adjustments in real-time.
2. The method according to claim 1,
wherein the customized choice result further comprises merchandise change information (see: Fig. 32-38, 0227-0233, Fig. 45-46 & Fig. 49-55 (4501, 4520, 4525, 4530, 4535), 0252, 0258-0262), and
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving the merchandise change information (see: Fig. 32-38, 0227-0233, Fig. 45-46 & Fig. 49-55 (4501, 4520, 4525, 4530, 4535), 0252, 0258-0262); and
overlappingly displaying the designed image or the customized virtual image on a virtual merchandise change image corresponding to the merchandise change information after receiving the merchandise change information (see: Fig. 32-38, 0227-0233, Fig. 45-46 & Fig. 49-55 (4501, 4520, 4525, 4530, 4535), 0252, 0258-0262).
Regarding claim 11 (computing device) and claim 12 (non-transitory computer-readable recording medium), claims 11-12 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 11-12 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) 3-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sights in view of Bowen (US 2020/0159871).
Regarding claim 3, Sights teaches all of the above but does not teach:
generating a customized amount according to a merchandise amount and a total element amount, and displaying the customized amount; and
dynamically updating the merchandise amount after receiving the merchandise change information, and
dynamically updating the customized amount as the merchandise amount changes,
wherein the merchandise amount is decided according to the merchandise information or the merchandise change information, and
wherein the total element amount is decided according to the content of the customized virtual image.
In the field of product customization, Bowen teaches:
generating a customized amount according to a merchandise amount (e.g., base price) and a total element amount (e.g., number and/or type of customizations), and displaying the customized amount (see: 0070, 0119, 0157, 0162-0164, Fig. 3F ($48)); and
dynamically updating the merchandise amount after receiving the merchandise change information, and dynamically updating the customized amount as the merchandise amount changes (see: 0164 (change in product, change in size of product, may affect the product price and may also be calculated and presented in real-time to the user), Fig. 3S-1 & 3S-2);
wherein the merchandise amount is decided according to the merchandise information or the merchandise change information (see: 0070 (base price), 0163, 0164 (change in product, change in size), 0245 (base prices and prices for each specified item variant)), and
wherein the total element amount is decided according to the content of the customized virtual image (see: 0070 (number and/or type of customizations), 0157 (additional minimum price, variable additional price) 0162, 0164, 0448 (premium item (e.g., for which a customized price may be specified)).
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 Sights to have utilized the known technique for editing design elements as taught by Bowen in order to have provided enhanced accuracy, reduced the possibility of user error, thereby making the customization process more efficient and informative (see: Bowen: 0053).
4. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
generating a customized amount according to a merchandise amount and a total element amount, and displaying the customized amount (see: Bowen: 0070, 0157, 0164, Fig. 3F ($48), Fig. 3S-1 & 3S-2 ($18, $26)),
wherein the merchandise amount is decided according to the merchandise information (see: Bowen: 0070 (base price), 0163, 0164 (change in product, change in size), 0245 (base prices and prices for each specified item variant)),
wherein the total element amount is decided according to the content of the customized virtual image (see: Bowen: 0070 (number and/or type of customizations), 0157 (additional minimum price, variable additional price) 0162, 0164, 0448 (premium item (e.g., for which a customized price may be specified)).
5. The method according to claim 4, further comprising:
dynamically updating the total element amount whenever the at least one edit operation is completed, and dynamically updating the customized amount as the total element amount changes (see: Bowen: 0157, 0164, Fig. 3S-1 & 3S-2).
6. The method according to claim 4,
wherein the customized choice result further comprises a sticker image (see: Bowen: 0032, 0184, Fig. 4F, Fig. 4R), and
wherein editing the at least one designed element in the designed image according to the at least one edit operation comprises:
receiving the sticker image (see: Bowen: 0184-0186, 0195, 0197, 0208, Fig. 4G, Fig. 4HH); and
using the sticker image as the at least one designed element to be added in the designed image (see: Bowen: 0184-0186, 0195, 0197, 0208, Fig. 4G, Fig. 4HH).
8. The method according to claim 4,
wherein editing the at least one designed element in the designed image according to the at least one edit operation comprises deleting a first element in the at least one designed element (see: Bowen: 0187, 0215, 0271, 0471, 0578), and
wherein the method further comprises:
judging whether the at least one designed element comprises a second element whenever the first element is deleted (see: Bowen: 0187, 0215, 0271, 0471, 0578);
dynamically updating the total element amount when the at least one designed element fails to comprise the second element, and dynamically updating the customized amount as the total element amount changes (see: Bowen: 0070, 0162, 0164); and
Note: Claim 8 includes the contingent limitations of:
maintaining the total element amount and the customized amount when the at least one designed element comprises the second element,
wherein the second element is another designed element that is the same as a sticker group to which the first element belongs.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP 211.04).
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein editing the at least one designed element in the designed image according to the at least one edit operation comprises:
inputting the at least one designed element to an image transformation model (see: 0012, 0260, 0360, 0362-0363, 0517); and
performing image transformation for the at least one designed element by the image transformation model (see: 0012, 0260, 0360, 0362-0363, 0517).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sights in view of Yan (US 2020/0250722) and PTO 892-U.
Regarding claim 10, Sights discloses all of the above but does not disclose:
inputting the customized virtual image into an image analysis model;
analyzing the content of the customized virtual image by the image analysis model, and generating an image analysis result; and
prompting a warning message when the image analysis result indicates that there is a copyright dispute in the content of the customized virtual image,
wherein the image analysis model is Google Vision API.
To this accord, Yan teaches 10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
inputting the customized virtual image into an image analysis model, analyzing the content of the customized virtual image by the image analysis model, and generating an image analysis result (see: 0009, 0034-0035, 0077 (recognition algorithm), 0088 (algorithm analyzes), 0090 (algorithm), 0128, 0132-0138, 0165 & 0198 (recognition algorithm)); and
prompting a warning message when the image analysis result indicates that there is a copyright dispute in the content of the customized virtual image (see: 0034, 0046, 0139, Fig. 3 (similar portion, alternative solutions)).
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 Sights to have utilized the known technique taught by Yan in order to have allowed users to clearly guide a portion that needs to be modified. At the same time, the user is given at least one alternative design that others can authorize to help the user to quickly resolve the similar portion, thus improving the efficiency, ensuring the product innovation, and avoiding product infringement and risks of being sued.
Lastly, Sights in view of Yan does not teach wherein the image analysis model is Google Vision API. This model was a well-known model before the effective filing date of the invention.
For example, PTO 892-U discloses the known use of Google Vision API (se: annotations (arrows) throughout).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the invention of Sights in view of Yan to have utilized the known type of image analysis model, including Google Vision API, as taught by PTO 892-U 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. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would have understood that using Google Vision API would have enabled easily integrated of vision detection features within applications, including image labeling, face and landmark detection, OCR and tagging content (see: 892-U, p. 3), thereby improving the invention of Sights in view of Yan.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Claim 7 is rejected on other grounds, but objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim containing allowable subject matter over the prior art. Claim 7 would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (e.g., claims 4 and 6). Notably, the indicated subject matter is constrained to the claim interpretations provided above.
Claim 7 recites 7. The method according to claim 6, further comprising:
judging whether a sticker group to which the sticker image belongs is a new group choice result whenever the sticker image is used as the at least one designed element to be added in the designed image;
maintaining the total element amount and the customized amount when the sticker group is not the new group choice result; and
dynamically updating the total element amount when the sticker group is the new group choice result, and dynamically updating the customized amount as the total element amount changes.
That is, the judging (i.e., determining) whether the sticker image (of claim 6) in a sticker group (i.e., having a group identification code) is one that is already used as a design element (i.e., not a new group choice result) or if it is a sticker image/group that has not yet been used as a designed element (i.e., sticker group is the new group choice result) (see also 0156). Based on this determination, the total element amount is maintained (i.e., is not changed) when the sticker image is not the new group choice results (i.e., already added), and dynamically updates each of the total element amount and the customized amount when the sticker group is the new group choice result (i.e., a sticker image that has not yet been used as a designed element in the current image).
The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed above. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bowen (US 20220075845) discloses product customization including an NFT price as well as the price of a given product being customized, which may depend on the number and type of content items included in the user creation corresponding to the NFT. For example, where a user is designing their own creation corresponding to an NFT, the number of items of content selected by the user from content galleries, and the particular cost associated with each item of content may be used to determine the NFT cost. In addition, optionally, different amounts may be charged for different user-selected text fonts, borders, colors, and/or the like used in the user creation. Thus, dynamic pricing may be provided for an NFT (and a product being customized) based on the number, type, and/or particular content items selected and utilized by a user in a user design. (see: 0030, 0569, 0572).
Zou (US 2020/0242215) discloses authenticating copyright of the target image comprises: determining, based on an image recognition technique, if the target image matches an image in a preset original library; and if not, determining copyright of the target image is authenticated (see: 0008, 0051).
Forrest (US 2024/0338499) discloses customization and editing of merchandise, including editing patterns, etc. (see Fig. 4A-4E, 0055-0059)
Schulman (US 2014/0067588) discloses an interface for custom product design including editing design elements (see: abstract, Fig. 9-11).
Schwartz (US 2003/0120551) discloses digital content items associated with a base price and one or more item configuration options, each associated with an option price (see: 0013-0015, 0028, 0032).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights