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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining interval parameters” in line 4 and “the determined interval parameter” in line 8. Since plural interval parameters are first recited, and the later recitation refers to a single interval parameter, it is unclear which single interval parameter is being referenced. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. Independent claims 14 and 20 have the same deficiency. The remaining claims depend on one of the independent claims but fail to cure the cited deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites displaying a texture image, receiving a configuration, determining interval parameters, and displaying a canvas with repeated instances of the texture image.
A broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations covers performance of the limitations by a person with pen and paper. For example, a person can draw a texture image on a piece of paper, which teaches the “displaying” limitation. Then, the person can receive instructions to copy the texture image a certain number of times, which teaches the “receiving” limitation. Next, the person can determine a proper spacing which would allow the repeated images to fit on the piece of paper, which teaches the “determining” limitation. Finally, the person can display the piece of paper, which teaches the “displaying” limitation. Therefore, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
There are no additional limitations, such as any requirement for the steps to be performed on a computer or other physical device, that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that could amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-12 recite additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea in the mental processes grouping. For example, a person can apply the repeated texture instances to a 3D representation using pen and paper (claim 2), a person can receive updated parameters and display updated repeating texture instances using pen and paper (claim 3), a person can mentally determine an iteration count for the repeating instances (claim 4) and interval parameters based on the various other parameters (claim 5), a person can create repeated textures extending beyond an edge of the canvas/paper (claim 6), a person can modify the first texture image and then make modifications to each of the repeating texture images using pen and paper (claim 7), a person can change a size or orientation of the texture image using pen and paper (claim 8), a person can mentally determine shift parameters for the textures (claim 9) using a shift index parameter (claim 10), a person can mentally determine how much to shift a row of textures using the claimed parameters (claim 11), and a person can mentally choose a shift index lower than an iteration count (claim 12)
Claim 13 recites “displaying moved, scaled, or rotated versions of the repeated instances” which is part of the abstract idea for the same reasons stated above. Claim 13 additionally recites “displaying user interface elements.” This can arguably be considered to place the claim into the technological environment of computer graphics. However, the “user interface elements” limitation is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Likewise, applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 14 and 20 are interpreted and analyzed in the same way as claim 1, but claim 14 additionally recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to” and claim 20 additionally recites “A simulation apparatus comprising: a display device; at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions, the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to.” However, these computer components are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 15-19 recite the same limitations as claims 2-4, 7, and 9, and they are interpreted and analyzed for patent eligibility in the same way as claims 2-4, 7, and 9. They are not patent eligible for the same reasons stated above.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winnemoeller et al. (US 2013/0127889; hereinafter “Winnemoeller”).
Regarding claim 1, Winnemoeller discloses A method for editing a texture of a garment (“article of clothing … to which a visual texture should be applied,” para. 64), comprising: displaying a texture image on a canvas representing a two-dimensional (2D) area (“specify and manipulate textures in 2D images,” para. 69); receiving a configuration of repeating the texture image on the canvas (“The user may also define texture distribution rules specifying how the texel is to be repeated across a 2D plane to form the texture,” para. 74); determining interval parameters representing a separated distance or an overlapping distance between repeated instances of the texture image on the canvas according to the received configuration (“once an example texel has been drawn and automatically replicated (e.g., using a default or user-specified grid spacing), the user may define (or redefine) the spacing between neighboring texels by interactively adjusting the grid spacing,” para. 74); and displaying the canvas with the repeated instances of texture image separated by the separated distance or overlapped by the overlapping distance according to the determined interval parameter (“outputting data representing texture map … the data may be provided to a display component of the image editing application for display of the texture map to the user,” para. 84).
Regarding claim 2, Winnemoeller discloses applying the repeated instances of the texture image on the canvas to a three-dimensional (3D) representation of a garment; and displaying the repeated instances of the texture image on the 3D representation of the garment (“applying the visual texture to the theoretical 3D surface,” para. 131; “using yet another interface (e.g., a GUI of an image editing application), the user may attach the texture material to one or more regions of the input image … to produce an output image that includes textured areas,” para. 142).
Regarding claim 3, Winnemoeller discloses receiving an updated configuration; updating the interval parameters according to the updated configuration; and updating the repeated instances of the texture image according to the updated interval parameters; and dynamically displaying the canvas as updated with the updated repeated instances of the texture image (“the user may define (or redefine) the spacing between neighboring texels by interactively adjusting the grid spacing,” para. 74).
Regarding claim 4, Winnemoeller discloses wherein the configuration comprises at least one of: a first iteration count indicating a number of times the instances of the texture image are repeated in the canvas in a first direction; or a second iteration count indicating a number of times the instances of the texture image are repeated in the canvas in a second direction (Figs. 17 and 20 illustrate 3x3 grids of repeated textures which teach a first and second iteration count of 3).
Regarding claim 7, Winnemoeller discloses receiving a modification to the texture image; updating the interval parameters to correspond to the received modification; updating repeated instances of the texture image according to the updated interval parameters; and dynamically displaying the canvas as updated with the updated repeating texture images (“modifying one or more parameters of the visual texture, e.g., a translation in a specified plane, a rotation around a specified axis, a spacing between atomic texture element instances, a size of one or more atomic texture element instances, or an orientation of one or more atomic texture element instances,” para. 131; “interactively design and manipulate vector textures,” para. 50).
Regarding claim 8, Winnemoeller discloses wherein the modification represents a change in a size of the texture image or an orientation of the texture image (“modifying one or more parameters of the visual texture, e.g., … a size of one or more atomic texture element instances, or an orientation of one or more atomic texture element instances,” para. 131).
Regarding claim 13, Winnemoeller discloses displaying user interface elements for moving, scaling, or rotating all of the repeated instances of the texture image on the canvas; and displaying moved, scaled, or rotated versions of the repeated instances of the texture image in response to receiving a user input through the interface elements (“the input mechanisms illustrated in FIG. 20 may also be used … to specify distribution rules (e.g., using a ‘grid tool’), or to perform other operations,” para. 153).
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 1, with the additional limitation of A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (“computer-readable storage medium,” Winnemoeller, para. 161).
Regarding claims 15-17 and 18, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 2-4 and 7, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 1, with the additional limitations of A simulation apparatus comprising: a display device; at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions, the instructions when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to (“computer-readable storage medium and one or more processors,” Winnemoeller, para. 161; “displaying images according to various embodiments,” Winnemoeller, para. 166).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winnemoeller in view of Burke (US 2015/0302624).
Regarding claim 5, Winnemoeller does not disclose wherein the interval parameter is determined by: determining a first interval parameter of the interval parameters by applying a size of the canvas in a first direction, a size of the texture image in the first direction, and the first iteration count to a first equation; and determining a second interval parameter of the interval parameters by applying a size of the canvas in a second direction, a size of the texture image in the second direction, and the second iteration count to a second equation.
In the same art of drawing repeating patterns, Burke teaches wherein the interval parameter is determined by: determining a first interval parameter of the interval parameters by applying a size of the canvas in a first direction, a size of the texture image in the first direction, and the first iteration count to a first equation; and determining a second interval parameter of the interval parameters by applying a size of the canvas in a second direction, a size of the texture image in the second direction, and the second iteration count to a second equation (“FIG. 15 shows the design of FIG. 9 using a matrix function, such that an arbitrary M*N matrix of image renderings is performed, shown as an 8*8 matrix,” para. 69; when comparing Fig. 12 having a matrix size of 4*4 with Fig. 15 having a matrix size of 8*8, one can see that the interval parameter of the texture images is based on a window/canvas size, texture image size, and texture image count because a change to any of these parameters would obviously change the interval parameter).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Burke to Winnemoeller. The motivation would have been “to help users conform to pre-press parameters required by digital printers and to produce design ready files needed by manufacturers of products” (Burke, para. 54).
Claims 9-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winnemoeller in view of ArahPaint 2.8b User’s Manual (hereinafter “ArahPaint”).
Regarding claim 9, Winnemoeller does not disclose determining one or more shift parameters indicating shifting of relative locations of the repeated instances of the texture image displayed on the canvas.
In the same art of drawing repeating patterns, ArahPaint teaches determining one or more shift parameters indicating shifting of relative locations of the repeated instances of the texture image displayed on the canvas (“Repeat mode; determines three different types of repeat alignment: block (first icon), brick (middle icon) and pillar (rightmost icon) … Offset: Active only when brick or pillar modes is selected. It can be either fixed (fraction of width/height of repeat - like half drop) or absolute,” pg. 26; Fig. 19 illustrates the shifting of relative locations of repeated texture images).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of ArahPaint to Winnemoeller. The motivation would have been that it “helps the designer to create a picture … And all functions are simple to use and easy accessible” (ArahPaint, pg. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Winnemoeller and ArahPaint renders obvious wherein the one or more shift parameters are determined by: a first shift index received from a user and indicating adjustment to a degree of shifting relative locations of adjacent rows of the repeated instances in a horizontal direction; or a second shift index received from the user and indicating adjustment to a degree of shifting relative locations of adjacent columns of the repeated instances in a vertical direction (“where the user inputs the offset in pixels,” ArahPaint, pg. 26; see claim 9 for motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Winnemoeller and ArahPaint renders obvious wherein the one or more shift parameters are determined by: determining a first shift parameter of the one or more shift parameters by applying an iteration count in the horizontal direction, a size of the texture image in the horizontal direction, an interval parameter in the horizontal direction, and the first shift index to a first equation; or determining a second shift parameter in the vertical direction based on an iteration count in the vertical direction, a size of the texture image in the vertical direction, an interval parameter in the vertical direction, and the second shift index to a second equation (in Figs. 14 and 19 of ArahPaint, the depicted user inputs of “Paste (times)” teaches the claimed “iteration count,” the inherent size of the texture teaches the claimed “size of the texture image,” the depicted “Distance” user input teaches the claimed “interval parameter,” and the depicted “Offset” user input teaches the claimed “first shift index,” and one can see that each of these is used in the computation of the preview drawing depicted in Fig. 19 and described in relation to Fig. 14 which includes a visual shift parameter between rows; see claim 9 for motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Winnemoeller and ArahPaint renders obvious wherein the first shift index is lower than an iteration count in the vertical direction, and the second shift index is lower than an iteration count in the horizontal direction (the “Offset” parameter of Figs 14 and 19 of ArahPaint is user-configurable, and a user can set this to any value, including a value lower than the “Paste (times)”/iteration count value).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The known prior art does not teach, in the context of the parent claim limitations, wherein the repeated instances of the texture image extend beyond the canvas in a first direction responsive to one of the interval parameters representing a distance or overlap in the first direction being a negative number.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611