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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment/response filed on 17 April 2026, which has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues “The claimed invention is not directed to mental processes because the claims contains limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Amended claim 1 is directed to dynamically configuring and rendering repeated instances of a texture image on a 2D canvas for garment simulation …” (Remarks, pg. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) recites “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea.” Drawing repeated instances of a texture onto a piece of paper and drawing them three-dimensionally can be implemented using pen and paper. The claimed “dynamically displaying” can include merely holding up the piece of paper with the three-dimensional texture drawing on it.
Applicant argues, regarding step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo test, “The claim is directed to the practical application of dynamically repeating and adjusting texture images” (Remarks, pg. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection below, each of the claim limitations can be performed using pen and paper, and therefore all of the claim limitations are part of the abstract idea. Thus, there are no “additional limitations” besides the abstract idea (at least in the method claims) that can incorporate the pen and paper process into a practical application or amount to substantially more than the abstract idea. For the non-method claims that do incorporate generic computing hardware, they amount to no more than instructions to merely apply the pen and paper process using generic computer hardware.
Upon reconsideration, the Examiner has concluded that claims 3, 7, 8, 13, 16, and 18 include additional elements that incorporate the abstract pen and paper process into a practical application because dynamically updating the renderings in response to new configuration parameters and including dynamic user interface elements improves the pen and paper process using the computer as a tool for efficient updating of the image.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues “Winnemoeller uses a spacing-based approach where a user identifies spacing between the instances of texture image” (Remarks, pg. 13), rather than a user specifying an iteration count. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a first matter, the independent claims (which are subject to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection) do not recite a “user” specifying the iteration count. Therefore, the independent claim scope includes a default iteration count. Winnemoeller discloses “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). Therefore, a default grid spacing associated with a default grid configuration can be used prior to user-specific grid spacing. Figs. 17 and 20 illustrate default 3x3 grids. Thus, the default configuration can be an iteration count of three, shown in Figs. 17 and 20. A user could subsequently make adjustments. Prior to the adjustments, a default iteration count (for example three) is used.
As a second matter, the dependent claims that require a user to select an iteration count are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to the claim amendments. The secondary reference Burke teaches a user specifying different grid dimensions. For example, Figs. 12-15 of Burke illustrate a slider that a user can drag to change the iteration count of the repeated texture instances.
Any remaining arguments are considered moot based on the foregoing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
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, 4-6, 9-12, 14, 17, 19, and 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. Note that merely reciting the word “dynamically” does not make the claim patent eligible because it is broad enough to include the act of a person making these manual drawings and showing them to another person.
Claims 4-6 and 9-12 recite additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea in the mental processes grouping. For example, 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 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)
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 17 and 19 recite the same limitations as claims 4 and 9, respectively, and they are interpreted and analyzed for patent eligibility in the same way as claims 4 and 9. They are not patent eligible for the same reasons stated above.
Conversely, claims 3, 7, 8, 13, 16, and 18 recite dynamically updating a display based on updated parameters, which would not practically be implemented with pen and paper, but rather implies a computing system with a dynamically changing display.
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, 3, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 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), the configuration including a first iteration count indicating a number of times instances of the texture image are repeated in the canvas in a first direction (Figs. 17 and 20 illustrate 3x3 grids of repeated textures which teach a first and second iteration count of 3); 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); 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 parameters (“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); applying the repeated instances of the texture image on the canvas to a three-dimensional (3D) representation of a garment; and dynamically 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; 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 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 16 and 18, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 3 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.
Claims 4, 5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winnemoeller in view of Burke (US 2015/0302624).
Regarding claim 4, Winnemoeller discloses receiving, from the user, a second iteration count as the configuration the second iteration count indicating a number of times the instances of the texture image are repeated in the canvas in a second direction.
In the same art of drawing repeating patterns, Burke teaches receiving, from the user, a second iteration count as the configuration the second iteration count indicating a number of times the instances of the texture image are repeated in the canvas in a second direction (e.g. Figs. 12-15 illustrates a slider at the top of the window where a user can select a grid count that specifies how many times a texture is repeated horizontally and vertically).
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).
Regarding claim 5, Winnemoeller does not disclose wherein the interval parameters are 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).
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 4.
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 any 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights