DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Examiner has reviewed the prior art disclosed in the Information Disclosure Statements of 12/13/24 and 07/19/24 of which comprises a search report from the European Patent Office. After careful consideration of the rationale presented in search report, the Examiner has declared that the cited prior art, although applicable, does not adequately disclose all of the claim limitations as required by 35 USC 102 or 103. The cited prior art does not particularly disclose nor would it have been obvious to combine prior art to establish the claimed limitations of explicitly generating a segmented watch region comprising a watch case region, a first watch strap region and a second watch strap region while further utilizing such regions in the rendering of a textured 3D watch object in an augmented reality display.
Priority
This application claims the benefit of application no. 63/515,882 filed 07/27/2023.
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.
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 7, 9, 16 and 18 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.
In reference to claims 7 and 16, these claims comprise the limitations of “adjusting thickness values of…the 3D mesh” (see for example lines 8, 11 and 14 of claim 7) of which the Examiner deems as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. In particular, it is unclear as to what is meant by “thickness” in the context of a “3D mesh” as one of ordinary skill in the art would normally know meshes, wireframes, etc. to comprise of “depth” and not “thickness.” The Examiner wonders if such choice of words is a result of some foreign translation output in an alternate version of the claims? Nonetheless, the Examiner deems the claimed wording to be indefinite since it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. The Examiner suggests a revision to the term or further explanation within the claim language as to what exactly is meant by “thickness” in the context of “3D meshes.”
In reference to claims 9 and 18, these claims comprise the limitations of, “wherein the texture attributes are generated according to one of: the watch case region, the first watch strap region, or the second watch strap region,” (see last 2 lines of each claim). Claims 9 and 18 depend directly upon claims 1 and 10 of which recite that the texture attributes are generated according to the segmented watch which comprises, “a watch case region, a first watch strap region, and a second watch strap region,” (see claims 1 and 10). Thus, there is an indefiniteness in claims 9 and 18 in that the texture attributes cannot be firstly claimed as derived from watch case, first strap and second strap regions (from claims 1 and 10) but then later recited as only requiring “one of” such regions (claims 9 and 18). The language of claims 9 and 18 almost contradicts that which is initially recited in claims 1 and 10 and for this reason the Examiner deems claims 9 and 18 indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, 17 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to claims 1, 10 and 19, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept generating a segmented watch region comprising a watch case region, a first watch strap region and a second watch strap region while further utilizing such regions in the rendering of a textured 3D watch object in an augmented reality display, in combination with the further limitations of the claims respectively.
In reference to claims 2-6, 8, 11-15, 17 and 20, these claims depend upon allowable claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively and are therefore also deemed allowable.
Claims 7, 9, 16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cupit (EP 2113881)
Cupit discloses producing an image of a watch and then applying the image to create a virtual model thereof.
Tran et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0323481)
Tran et al. discloses an augmented reality method that selects an image of an object to be installed and converts the image to a 3D model.
Hancock et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0232720)
Hancock et al. discloses a product visualization and manufacturing system that bridges 2D and 3D technologies to modify a 3D base model using 2D image manipulations.
Ali et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0277489)
Ali et al. discloses systems and techniques for modeling 3D meshes using images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
1/7/26