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
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 with relation to PCT Application No. JP2022/009001, filed 03/02/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 09/02/2024 and 2/19/2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 09/02/2024 have been considered.
Claim 15 has been amended.
Claims 1-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 limitations are: “(device 1) a device converting image data”, “(device 2) a device converting image data”, “(device 3) a device acquiring image data”, “(device 4) a device converting image data” and “(device 5) a device acquiring image data” in claim 15. Although the devices are linked to “an image data processing apparatus”, it is noted that the claimed apparatus does not provide sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses that an devices 1-5 perform a functions including converting and acquiring image data (Spec [0023-0045]). While the specification does not explicitly disclose these devices as software operating on the disclosed hardware, such as the image data processing apparatus, it describes the “converting” and “acquiring” functions, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as software functions operating on hardware. Accordingly, “(device 1) a device converting image data”, “(device 2) a device converting image data”, “(device 3) a device acquiring image data”, “(device 4) a device converting image data” and “(device 5) a device acquiring image data” are interpreted as encompassing software operating on hardware.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 15 further recites “a device for operating a virtual store”. While this limitation similarly recites a generic placeholder (“a device”) coupled with functional language (“for operating a virtual store”), Claim 15 defines the claimed device as comprising terminals and a server, and therefore the claim recites sufficient structure. Accordingly, the term does not invoke 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a series of method steps (“1-5”) using parenthetical numbering (e.g., “(step 1), (step 2), (step 3), (step 4), and (step 5)”) of a list of elements. Labeling the steps in this manner is not a requirement, and it is further unclear whether the steps are intended to be performed in the recited order. It is requested that the claim is amended to remove these parenthetical identifiers.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites a series of devices (“1-5”) using parenthetical numbering (e.g., “(device 1), (device 2), (device 3), (device 4), and (device 5)”) of a list of elements. Labeling the devices in this manner is not a requirement, and it is further unclear whether functionality of each respective device is performed in the recited order. It is requested that the claim is amended to remove these parenthetical identifiers. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-14 are directed towards a process. Claims 15-28 are directed towards a machine. Therefore, claims 1-28 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-28).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
a method for operating a store by using a method for handling a product (C) in which a specific image (A) is applied to a specific article (B), a user who intends to purchase or list the product (C), and a store operator,
wherein the method performs the following steps including:
(step 1) a step of acquiring image data (A1),
(step 2) a step of acquiring image data (B1) corresponding to a surface state of a region of the article (B) on which the image (A) is printed,
(step 3) a step of acquiring image data (A2) from the image data (A1) and the image data (B1), and
(step 5) a step of acquiring image data (C0) corresponding to the product (C) from the image data (A3) and the image data (B0), and
display a sample image of the product (C) based on the image data (C0) obtained by the method, and send and receive information regarding purchase and/or listing of the product (C) between the user and the store operator.
Claim 15 recites the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of a marketplace for customized products. These recited limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" Grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including a virtual store, an image data processing method, a terminal of a virtual store user, a terminal of a virtual store operator, and a server connected to the Internet, converting image data (A0) corresponding to the image (A), converting image data (B0) corresponding to the article (B), (step 4) converting the image data (A2) to the image (B0), and transmitting information between the terminal of the virtual store user and the terminal of the virtual store operator. Claim 15 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites a device for operating a virtual store, comprising: an image data processing apparatus; a server connected to the Internet; wherein the image data processing apparatus has the following devices 1 to 5 including (device 1)… (device 2)… (device 3)… (device 4)… and (device 5).
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of a marketplace for customized products is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 15 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 15 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of a virtual store, an image data processing method, a terminal of a virtual store user, a terminal of a virtual store operator, and a server connected to the Internet, converting image data (A0) corresponding to the image (A), converting image data (B0) corresponding to the article (B), (step 4) converting the image data (A2) to the image (B0), transmitting information between the terminal of the virtual store user and the terminal of the virtual store operator; a device for operating a virtual store, comprising: an image data processing apparatus; and a server connected to the Internet; wherein the image data processing apparatus has the following devices 1 to 5 including (device 1)… (device 2)… (device 3)… (device 4)… and (device 5) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-28, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 9-14, 18, 20,21 and 23-28, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 15, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claims 1 and 15. Therefore, claims 4, 6, 7, 9-14, 18, 20,21 and 23-28 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 16, 17, 19 and 22, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 15. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
wherein… a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness of the image data (A0) corresponding to the image (A) is converted;
wherein… a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness of the image data (A0) corresponding to the image (A) is converted to reduce one or more of brightness, chroma, and transparency;
wherein… color image data included in the image data (B0) corresponding to the article (B) is converted into grayscale image data and/or the image data (B0) is subjected to blurring;
wherein… a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness of the image data (A0) corresponding to the image (A) is converted to increase one or more of brightness, chroma, and transparency;
The additional elements of a mobile phone, a Quick Response (QR) code scannable by the purchase computing system, and one or more of a vendor computer system or a point of sale computer system are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-28 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4, 6-18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application No. 2015/0066189 A1 to Mulligan et al., hereinafter Mulligan, in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2010/0185309 A1 to Ohiaeri, hereinafter Ohiaeri.
Regarding Claim 1, Mulligan discloses A method for operating by using an image data processing method for handling a product (C) in which a specific image (A) is applied to a specific article (B) ([0033] preparing a three-dimensional model of a two-dimensional design… for any product suitable for printing; [0034] generating 2D print files that can then be sent to a printer of the required material types to print out the individual components on the raw materials that make up the product),
a terminal of a user ([0034] a system allowing users to design products via a user interface… a computer system having a mobile application for use on a tablet computer, or the like… products are made on-demand and maintain retail quality level, thereby allowing artists to create products), and
a server connected to the Internet ([0035]),
wherein the image data processing method performs the following steps 1 to 5 including
(step 1) a step of converting image data (A0) corresponding to the image (A) to acquire image data (A1) ([0043] a user selects one or more source images for placement on a desired product via the user interface; [0046] the uploaded high-resolution image is substituted for a low-resolution version of the same image to improve system performance, and further scaled; [Fig. 1B]),
(step 2) a step of converting image data (B0) corresponding to the article (B) to acquire image data (B1) corresponding to a surface state of a region of the article (B) on which the image (A) is printed ([0063] for each unique product… industry standard design files are transformed into XML data and 3D models that can be used by the product design system 10; [0065-0067] a design file is converted to a 3D model, where the product 400 is split into its separate objects; [0037-0038][0040] creating pattern XML data for a product including pattern pieces, where the boundaries of the pattern pieces are closed curves based on the sewing line, marking the object’s exact area visible in the 3D model; see [Fig. 3] depicting pattern pieces for components of a backpack) (Note: The pattern pieces of Mulligan define the boundaries of the visual portions of the 3D model on which artwork is printed, and accordingly correspond to a surface state),
(step 3) a step of acquiring image data (A2) from the image data (A1) and the image data (B1) ([0068] the product model/pattern are added as a new product. Next, the Template Editor 300 is used to create the first template for the new product by centering the artwork to the frontal piece and roughly aligning the artwork through the seams… see [0042] processing the source image to generate artwork on a 2D pattern; [0047] artwork is sent to each piece in the pattern XML (of the product) in order to undergo a transformation that is specific for that pattern piece),
(step 4) a step of converting the image data (A2) to acquire image data (A3) ([0070] If the template does not appear to be smooth, grid density may be increased as necessary… the template may be modified by modifying the distortion grid until it is smooth and aligns through seams), and
(step 5) a step of acquiring image data (C0) corresponding to the product (C) from the image data (A3) and the image data (B0) ([0042] The generated 3D model is preferably displayed to the user to provide real-time feedback regarding the design; [0049] the template editor 300 outputs product models used to visually verify how the template transforms a piece of artwork across components of the product; [0084] The 3D Preview view 220 acts as a visual guide to provide precise feedback of the resulting template… see [0073] When finished, the template is saved as a new template) (Note: Receiving a real-time display regarding feedback for a finished template has been interpreted as acquiring image data (C0)), and
the server displays a sample image of the product (C) on the terminal of the virtual store user based on the image data (C0) obtained by the image data processing method ([0043] The 3D Preview view portion 220 of the user interface 200 preferably displays the 3D model of the desired product with any artwork from the artboard view 210 applied thereto, thereby providing visual feedback of the positioning and/or design process; see [Fig. 2] 3D Preview view 220… see [0042] The generated 3D model is preferably displayed to the user to provide real-time feedback regarding the design), and
transmits and receives information regarding the product (C) ([0035] the product design system 10 transmits user interfaces and other data for display by the web server 50; [0080] user interface 200 of the product design system 10);
But does not explicitly disclose operating a virtual store; a terminal of a virtual store user who intends to purchase or list the product (C); a terminal of a virtual store operator; and transmitting information regarding purchase and/or listing between the terminal of the virtual store user and the terminal of the virtual store operator. Mulligan, however, does disclose that the servers of the product design system include an Apache web server for implementing E-commerce applications (see at least [0035]).
In the field of product design via image processing (see at least Ohiaeri [abstract][0133]), Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches operating a virtual store ([0015] an ecommerce engine 110 that allows the consumer to purchase the customized product);
a terminal of a virtual store user who intends to purchase or list the product (C) ([0014] one or more consumer computing devices 102; [0134] the user may add customized products to an electronic shopping cart);
a terminal of a virtual store operator ([0015] the product customization unit 106 may further comprise at least one web server 107 (implemented in hardware or software or a combination of the two) that establishes a connection with each consumer computer device); and
transmitting and receiving information regarding purchase and/or listing between the terminal of the virtual store user and the terminal of the virtual store operator ([0134] a commerce portion 137b that allows the user to select a quantity of products to purchase, shows the accumulated price of the products and allows the user to add the customized products to an electronic shopping cart; see [0015] the web server receives requests from each consumer computer device and communications data, information and requests to consumer devices).
The steps of Ohiaeri are applicable to the method of Hoffman, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the product design process as taught by Hoffman to include the e-commerce aspects of Ohiaeri, including a virtual store, terminals of users of the virtual store, and transmitting/receiving information regarding purchase and/or listing between the terminal of the virtual store user and the terminal of the virtual store operator. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Hoffman in order to allow a customer to purchase a product after customizing it (Ohiaeri, ([0013][0134]).
Regarding Claim 2, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Hoffman further discloses wherein, in the step 1, a value corresponding to the image data (AO) corresponding to the image (A) is converted to acquire the image data (A1) ([0043] a user selects one or more source images for placement on a desired product via the user interface; [0046] the uploaded high-resolution image is substituted for a low-resolution version of the same image to improve system performance, and further scaled; [Fig. 1B]);
But does not explicitly disclose a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness.
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness ([0024-0025] optical properties of the materials deposited on the substrate include transparency; [0134] a user may view the product image with the user content, as well as the transparency and/or opacity of the design; see [0015] a product design is customized using user content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness, as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Hoffman further discloses wherein, in the step 1, a value corresponding to the image data (A0) corresponding to the image (A) is converted to reduce, thereby acquiring the image data (A1) ([0043] a user selects one or more source images for placement on a desired product via the user interface; [0046] the uploaded high-resolution image is substituted for a low-resolution version of the same image to improve system performance, and further scaled; [Fig. 1B]);
But does not explicitly disclose a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness.
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness ([0024-0025] optical properties of the materials deposited on the substrate include transparency; [0134] a user may view the product image with the user content, as well as the transparency and/or opacity of the design; see [0015] a product design is customized using user content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness, as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Hoffman further discloses wherein, in the step 2, the image data (B0) corresponding to the article (B) is converted to acquire the image data (B1) corresponding to a region of the article (B) to which the image (A) is applied ([0063] for each unique product… industry standard design files are transformed into XML data and 3D models that can be used by the product design system 10; [0065-0067] a design file is converted to a 3D model, where the product 400 is split into its separate objects; [0037-0038][0040] creating pattern XML data for a product including pattern pieces, where the boundaries of the pattern pieces are closed curves based on the sewing line, marking the object’s exact area visible in the 3D model);
But does not explicitly disclose image data corresponding to unevenness and/or texture of a region of the article.
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches image data corresponding to unevenness and/or texture of a region of the article ([0013] allowing a consumer/user to insert user content onto a product with an uneven surface/texture; [0112] compile a textureInput-lightOutput map for the view and lighting of a specific product with user configured surfaces; see [0129] pixels in a design image are tagged with color and surface information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, image data corresponding to unevenness and/or texture of a region of the article, as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan further discloses wherein, in the step 3, the image data (A2) that reflects both the image (A) and a surface state of a region of the article (B) to which the image (A) is applied is acquired from the image data (A1) and the image data (B1) ([0068] the product model/pattern are added as a new product. Next, the Template Editor 300 is used to create the first template for the new product by centering the artwork to the frontal piece and roughly aligning the artwork through the seams… see [0042] processing the source image to generate artwork on a 2D pattern; [0047] artwork is sent to each piece in the pattern XML (of the product) in order to undergo a transformation that is specific for that pattern piece).
Regarding Claim 7, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan further discloses wherein, in the step 3, the image data (A2) that reflects both the image (A) and the region of the article (B) on which the image (A) is printed is acquired from the image data (A1) and the image data (B1) ([0068] the product model/pattern are added as a new product. Next, the Template Editor 300 is used to create the first template for the new product by centering the artwork to the frontal piece and roughly aligning the artwork through the seams… see [0042] processing the source image to generate artwork on a 2D pattern; [0047] artwork is sent to each piece in the pattern XML (of the product) in order to undergo a transformation that is specific for that pattern piece).
Regarding Claim 8, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan further discloses wherein, in the step 4, a value corresponding to the image data (A2) is converted to acquire the image data (A3) ([0070] If the template does not appear to be smooth, grid density may be increased as necessary… the template may be modified by modifying the distortion grid until it is smooth and aligns through seams);
But does not explicitly disclose a value one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness.
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness ([0024-0025] optical properties of the materials deposited on the substrate include transparency; [0134] a user may view the product image with the user content, as well as the transparency and/or opacity of the design).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness, as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan further discloses wherein, in the step 4, a value corresponding to the image data (A2) is converted to increase, thereby acquiring the image data (A3) ([0070] If the template does not appear to be smooth, grid density may be increased as necessary… the template may be modified by modifying the distortion grid until it is smooth and aligns through seams).
But does not explicitly disclose a value one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness.
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness ([0024-0025] optical properties of the materials deposited on the substrate include transparency; [0134] a user may view the product image with the user content, as well as the transparency and/or opacity of the design).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, a value corresponding to one or more of hue, brightness, chroma, transparency, and sharpness, as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan further discloses wherein, in the step 5, the image data (C0) as a sample image of a made-to-order product obtained by applying the image (A) to the article (B) is acquired from the image data (A3) and the image data (B0) ([0042] The generated 3D model is preferably displayed to the user to provide real-time feedback regarding the design; [0049] the template editor 300 outputs product models used to visually verify how the template transforms a piece of artwork across components of the product; [0084] The 3D Preview view 220 acts as a visual guide to provide precise feedback of the resulting template… see [0073] When finished, the template is saved as a new template).
Regarding Claim 11, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan further discloses wherein the image (A) is selected by the user on the terminal of the user ([0043] a user selects one or more source images for placement on a desired product via the user interface);
But does not explicitly disclose the user who intends to purchase or list the product (C) in the virtual store.
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches the user who intends to purchase or list the product (C) in the virtual store ([0014] one or more consumer computing devices 102; [0134] the user may add customized products to an electronic shopping cart).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, the user who intends to purchase or list the product (C) in the virtual store, as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan does not explicitly disclose wherein the information regarding purchase and/or listing of the product (C) includes one or more of a size, a quantity, a delivery destination, and a price of the product (C).
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches wherein the information regarding purchase and/or listing of the product (C) includes one or more of a size,
a quantity ([0134] allowing the user to select a quantity of products to purchase),
a delivery destination, and
a price of the product (C) ([0134] showing the accumulated price of the products and allows the user to add the customized products to an electronic shopping cart).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, wherein the information regarding purchase and/or listing of the product (C) includes one or more of a size, a quantity, a delivery destination, and a price of the product (C), as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan does not explicitly disclose wherein the article (B) is made of one or more materials selected from a resin, a metal, a ceramic, and a natural material.
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches wherein the article (B) is made of one or more materials selected from a resin, a metal, a ceramic, and a natural material (wood grain) ([0104-0105] for a premium Skateboard product… the product surface layer includes wood grain; see [0057] applying user created designs to a product made out of layers of material with specific optical qualities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, wherein the article (B) is made of one or more materials selected from a resin, a metal, a ceramic, and a natural material, as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Hoffman further discloses wherein the article (B) is clothing ([0033] The three-dimensional model may be of any product suitable for printing, but is preferably a garment).
Regarding Claim 15, Mulligan discloses A device for operating, comprising ([0035] a computer system having a web browser 50):
an image data processing apparatus for handling a product (C) in which a specific image (A) is applied to a specific article (B) ([0033-0036] product design system is connected to a computer system having a web browser 50));
a terminal of a user ([0034] a system allowing users to design products via a user interface… a computer system having a mobile application for use on a tablet computer, or the like… products are made on-demand and maintain retail quality level, thereby allowing artists to create products); and
a server connected to the Internet ([0035]),
wherein the image data processing apparatus has the following devices 1 to 5 including ([0043] the user interface of the product design system 10 facilitates the source image input, manipulation, and 3D model viewing process)
(device 1) a device converting image data (AO) corresponding to the image (A) to acquire image data (Al) ([0043] a user selects one or more source images for placement on a desired product via the user interface; [0046] the uploaded high-resolution image is substituted for a low-resolution version of the same image to improve system performance, and further scaled; [Fig. 1B]),
(device 2) a device converting image data (BO) corresponding to the article (B) to acquire image data (B1) corresponding to a surface state of a region of the article (B) on which the image (A) is printed ([0063] for each unique product… industry standard design files are transformed into XML data and 3D models that can be used by the product design system 10; [0065-0067] a design file is converted to a 3D model, where the product 400 is split into its separate objects; [0037-0038][0040] creating pattern XML data for a product including pattern pieces, where the boundaries of the pattern pieces are closed curves based on the sewing line, marking the object’s exact area visible in the 3D model; see [Fig. 3] depicting pattern pieces for components of a backpack),
(device 3) a device acquiring image data (A2) from the image data (Al) and the image data (B1) ([0068] the product model/pattern are added as a new product. Next, the Template Editor 300 is used to create the first template for the new product by centering the artwork to the frontal piece and roughly aligning the artwork through the seams… see [0042] processing the source image to generate artwork on a 2D pattern; [0047] artwork is sent to each piece in the pattern XML (of the product) in order to undergo a transformation that is specific for that pattern piece),
(device 4) a device converting the image data (A2) to acquire image data (A3) ([0070] If the template does not appear to be smooth, grid density may be increased as necessary… the template may be modified by modifying the distortion grid until it is smooth and aligns through seams), and
(device 5) a device acquiring image data (CO) corresponding to the product (C) from the image data (A3) and the image data (BO) ([0042] The generated 3D model is preferably displayed to the user to provide real-time feedback regarding the design; [0049] the template editor 300 outputs product models used to visually verify how the template transforms a piece of artwork across components of the product; [0084] The 3D Preview view 220 acts as a visual guide to provide precise feedback of the resulting template… see [0073] When finished, the template is saved as a new template) (Note: Receiving a real-time display regarding feedback for a finished template has been interpreted as acquiring image data (C0)), and
the server displays a sample image of the product (C) on the terminal of the virtual store user based on the image data (CO) obtained by the image data processing apparatus ([0043] The 3D Preview view portion 220 of the user interface 200 preferably displays the 3D model of the desired product with any artwork from the artboard view 210 applied thereto, thereby providing visual feedback of the positioning and/or design process; see [Fig. 2] 3D Preview view 220… see [0042] The generated 3D model is preferably displayed to the user to provide real-time feedback regarding the design), and
transmits and receives information regarding the product (C) ([0035] the product design system 10 transmits user interfaces and other data for display by the web server 50; [0080] user interface 200 of the product design system 10).
But does not explicitly disclose operating a virtual store; a terminal of a virtual store user who intends to purchase or list the product (C); a terminal of a virtual store operator; and transmitting information regarding purchase and/or listing between the terminal of the virtual store user and the terminal of the virtual store operator. Mulligan, however, does disclose that the servers of the product design system include an Apache web server for implementing E-commerce applications (see at least [0035]).
In the field of product design via image processing (see at least Ohiaeri [abstract][0133]), Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches operating a virtual store ([0015] an ecommerce engine 110 that allows the consumer to purchase the customized product);
a terminal of a virtual store user who intends to purchase or list the product (C) ([0014] one or more consumer computing devices 102; [0134] the user may add customized products to an electronic shopping cart);
a terminal of a virtual store operator ([0015] the product customization unit 106 may further comprise at least one web server 107 (implemented in hardware or software or a combination of the two) that establishes a connection with each consumer computer device); and
transmitting and receiving information regarding purchase and/or listing between the terminal of the virtual store user and the terminal of the virtual store operator ([0134] a commerce portion 137b that allows the user to select a quantity of products to purchase, shows the accumulated price of the products and allows the user to add the customized products to an electronic shopping cart; see [0015] the web server receives requests from each consumer computer device and communications data, information and requests to consumer devices).
The steps of Ohiaeri are applicable to the device of Hoffman, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the product design process as taught by Hoffman to include the e-commerce aspects of Ohiaeri, including a virtual store, terminals of users of the virtual store, and transmitting/receiving information regarding purchase and/or listing between the terminal of the virtual store user and the terminal of the virtual store operator. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Hoffman in order to allow a customer to purchase a product after customizing it (Ohiaeri, ([0013][0134]).
Claim 16 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 2. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 2.
Claim 17 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 3. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 18 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 4. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 4.
Claim 20 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 6. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 6.
Claim 21 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 7. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 7.
Claim 22 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 8. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 8.
Claim 23 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 9. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 9.
Claim 24 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 10. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 10.
Claim 25 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 11. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 11.
Claim 26 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 12. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 12.
Claim 27 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 13. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 13.
Claim 28 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 14. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 14.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulligan in view of Ohiaeri, and further in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2020/0375293 A1 to Koh, hereinafter Koh.
Regarding Claim 5, Mulligan and Ohiaeri teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mulligan further discloses wherein, in the step 2, image data included in the image data (BO) corresponding to the article (B) is converted to acquire the image data (B1) corresponding to the region of the article (B) on which the image (A) is printed ([0063] for each unique product… industry standard design files are transformed into XML data and 3D models that can be used by the product design system 10; [0065-0067] a design file is converted to a 3D model, where the product 400 is split into its separate objects; [0037-0038][0040] creating pattern XML data for a product including pattern pieces, where the boundaries of the pattern pieces are closed curves based on the sewing line, marking the object’s exact area visible in the 3D model);
But does not explicitly disclose wherein color image data included in the image data is converted to grayscale image data and/or the image data is subjected to blurring to acquire image data corresponding to unevenness and/or texture.
In the field of product design via image processing (see Koh, [abstract][0164]), Koh, on the other hand, teaches wherein color image data included in the image data is converted to grayscale image data and/or the image data is subjected to blurring to acquire image data ([0180-0181] transformation of a raw image of a garment includes using a Gaussian blur algorithm to reduce image noise; see [0164] a user uploads a raw image of a garment).
The steps of Koh are applicable to the method of Hoffman/Ohiaeri, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the product design process as taught by Hoffman/Ohiaeri to include the image processing aspects of Koh, including wherein color image data included in the image data is converted to grayscale image data and/or the image data is subjected to blurring to acquire image data. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Hoffman in order to improve image analysis by reducing image noise (Koh, ([0181]).
Ohiaeri, on the other hand, teaches acquiring image data corresponding to unevenness and/or texture ([0013] allowing a consumer/user to insert user content onto a product with an uneven surface/texture; [0112] compile a textureInput-lightOutput map for the view and lighting of a specific product with user configured surfaces; see [0129] pixels in a design image are tagged with color and surface information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method, as taught by Hoffman, acquiring image data corresponding to unevenness and/or texture, as taught by Ohiaeri, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19 recites a device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 5. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent Application No. 2008/0252651 A1 to Mills – Combining a design image with a product image to create a composite image, which illustrates the result of printing the design image onto the product.
U.S Patent Application No. 2018/0033064 A1 to Varley – Superimposing an electronic image onto one or more product images, creating a preview image shown to the consumer before deciding to purchase the product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights