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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 9/3/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12 are currently pending, claims 5 and 11 are cancelled, claims 1 and 7 are amended. Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12 are rejected as follows.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1
an image collection unit configured to collect (corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0043 of the specification)
an image analysis unit configured to analyze(corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0046-47 of the specification)
a costume registration unit configured to cooperate with a user terminal to register a new digital costume by applying by applying an attribute transformation process, wherein at least one attribute of a selected fashion image is modified according to input from the user terminal, and wherein the transformed attribute set is combined with remaining attributes of the selected fashion image to synthesize a digital representation of the new digital costume for storage; (corresponding structure is described in 0092, 0039, 0047 and 0048 of the specification)
a non-fungible token (NFT) issuance unit configured to generate metadata identifying the new digital costume and issue a first NFT for the new digital costume on a blockchain. such that the metadata is recorded on the blockchain; (corresponding structure is described in 0092, 0040 and 0049 of the specification)
a virtual fitting unit configured to authenticate and activate and superimpose the new digital costume (corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0050-51 of the specification)
an avatar creation unit configured to receive (corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0053, 0073 of the specification)
a sales management unit configured to distribute (corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0058-60 of the specification)
the sales management unit compares attributes and distributes a sales amount (corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0049 of the specification)
Parallel claim language recited in claim 7
Claim 3
the virtual fitting unit is configured to load a virtual avatar […] and superimpose the new digital costume onto the virtual avatar (corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0050-51 of the specification)
Parallel claim language recited in claim 9
Claim 4
the virtual fitting unit is configured to change a pose […] and then provide the superimposed augmented reality screen (corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0050-51 of the specification)
Claim 6
a make-to-order production unit is configured to authenticate the ownership […] and transmit the make-to- order production request for the new digital costume (corresponding structure is described in 0092 and 0061 of the specification)
Parallel claim language recited in claim 12
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.
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 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.
Step 1: The claims 1-4, and 6 are a system and claims 7-11 and 12 are a method. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1 and 7 taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A system for recombining digital clothes based on blockchain, comprising:
an image collection unit configured to collect a plurality of fashion images;
an image analysis unit configured to analyze each collected fashion image to identify attributes constituting each fashion image;
a costume registration unit configured to cooperate with the user terminal to register a new digital costume by applying an attribute transformation process, wherein at least one attribute of a selected fashion image is modified according to input from the user terminal, and wherein the transformed attribute set is combined with remaining attributes of the selected fashion image to synthesize a digital representation of the new digital costume for storage;
a non-fungible token (NFT) issuance unit configured to generate metadata identifying the new digital costume and issue a first NFT for the new digital costume on a blockchain, such that the metadata is recorded on the blockchain;
a virtual fitting unit configured to authenticate an ownership of the first NFT through a blockchain electronic wallet and activate a virtual fitting function for the new digital costume only for the user terminal for which authentication of the ownership has been completed;
a sales management unit configured to distribute a portion of the sales amount for the ownership of the first NFT to an original creator of the selected fashion image when the ownership of the first NFT of the user is sold; and
an avatar creation unit configured to receive body information including a face shape, a body shape, and a body size of the user from the user terminal and create a personalized avatar corresponding to the body information,
wherein the NFT issuance unit issues a second NFT corresponding to the personalized avatar, and an ownership of the second NFT is sold independently of the ownership of the first NFT
wherein the virtual fitting unit superimposes the new digital costume onto the personalized avatar in a virtual space and then provides the superimposed augmented reality screen to a user terminal for which authentication of the ownership of the first NFT and the second NFT has been completed,
wherein the sales management unit if further configured to compares attributes of the new digital costume with attributes of the selected fashion image for calculating a similarity between the new digital costume and the selected fashion image, increase a ratio of the sales amount distributed to the original creator of the selected fashion image as the similarity between the new digital costume and the selected fashion image increases, and to distribute a sales amount for the ownership of the second NFT to the user who has provided the body information corresponding to the personalized avatar when the ownership of the second NFT is sold.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for collecting fashion images, identifying attributes of the fashion images, receive selection of fashion images, assigning a currency to the created and registered new costume, distributing sales to the appropriate party when a transfer of ownership of the costume occurs, displaying the costume on a screen to a user, issuing a second currency when costume is sold to another party and determining the appropriate distribution of sales based on the sale. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A system for recombining digital clothes based on blockchain, comprising:
an image collection unit configured to collect a plurality of fashion images;
an image analysis unit configured to analyze each collected fashion image to identify attributes constituting each fashion image;
a costume registration unit configured to cooperate with the user terminal to register a new digital costume by applying an attribute transformation process, wherein at least one attribute of a selected fashion image is modified according to input from the user terminal, and wherein the transformed attribute set is combined with remaining attributes of the selected fashion image to synthesize a digital representation of the new digital costume for storage;
a non-fungible token (NFT) issuance unit configured to generate metadata identifying the new digital costume and issue a first NFT for the new digital costume on a blockchain, such that the metadata is recorded on the blockchain;
a virtual fitting unit configured to authenticate an ownership of the first NFT through a blockchain electronic wallet and activate a virtual fitting function for the new digital costume only for the user terminal for which authentication of the ownership has been completed;
a sales management unit configured to distribute a portion of the sales amount for the ownership of the first NFT to an original creator of the selected fashion image when the ownership of the first NFT of the user is sold; and
an avatar creation unit configured to receive body information including a face shape, a body shape, and a body size of the user from the user terminal and create a personalized avatar corresponding to the body information,
wherein the NFT issuance unit issues a second NFT corresponding to the personalized avatar, and an ownership of the second NFT is sold independently of the ownership of the first NFT
wherein the virtual fitting unit superimposes the new digital costume onto the personalized avatar in a virtual space and then provides the superimposed augmented reality screen to a user terminal for which authentication of the ownership of the first NFT and the second NFT has been completed,
wherein the sales management unit if further configured to compares attributes of the new digital costume with attributes of the selected fashion image for calculating a similarity between the new digital costume and the selected fashion image, increase a ratio of the sales amount distributed to the original creator of the selected fashion image as the similarity between the new digital costume and the selected fashion image increases, and to distribute a sales amount for the ownership of the second NFT to the user who has provided the body information corresponding to the personalized avatar when the ownership of the second NFT is sold.
The recitation of the emphasized above additional elements merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although these additional elements limit the identified judicial exception, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Augmented Reality and Blockchain/Cryptocurrency) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of A system for recombining digital clothes based on blockchain, comprising: an image collection unit configured to collect; an image analysis unit configured to analyze; a costume registration unit configured to receive; from a user terminal; a non-fungible token (NFT) issuance unit configured to issue; a virtual fitting unit configured to authenticate; a blockchain electronic wallet; a virtual fitting function; a sales management unit configured to distribute; an avatar creation unit configured to receive are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f). The specification sets forth the blockchain and corresponding digital assets (NFTs) as generic implementations in [0039, 0041].
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As the method of claim 7 recites parallel claim language, the analysis above also applies to claim 7.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, and 12 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1 and 7 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein the attributes constituting each fashion image include at least two or more of a material, a print, a style, a color, a shoulder line, a sleeve length, a neckline, a collar, a fit, a safe, and a silhouette. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the virtual fitting unit is configured to load a virtual avatar having the most similar body shape and body size to a specific person or mannequin among a plurality of virtual avatars previously stored in a database when the user terminal photographs the specific person or mannequin through a photographing unit, and superimpose the new digital costume onto the virtual avatar in a virtual space, and then provide the superimposed augmented reality screen to the user terminal for which the authentication of the ownership has been completed. The claim further limits the abstract idea by displaying the avatar based on a set of criteria. The claim recites the additional elements of a database and a photographing unit, however they are merely carrying out the abstract idea and do not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein the virtual fitting unit is configured to change a pose of the virtual avatar to correspond to a pose of the specific person or mannequin, superimpose the new digital costume onto the virtual avatar in the virtual space, and then provide the superimposed augmented reality screen to the user terminal for which the authentication of the ownership has been completed. The limitation merely further limits the data displayed to the user and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites a make-to-order production unit is configured to authenticate the ownership of the first NFT of the user terminal through the blockchain electronic wallet when receiving a make-to-order production request for the new digital costume from the user terminal, and transmit the make-to- order production request for the new digital costume to a set make-to-order production server only when the authentication of the ownership has been completed. The limitation merely further limits the processing of the ownership of the NFT and transmits the request to for authentication of the costume. While the claim adds the additional elements of a make-to order production unit and server, the additional elements merely carry out the abstract idea.
Claims 8-10, and 12 recite parallel claim language and are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
For these reasons the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claimed Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The claims are now rejected under 35 USC 101, however have overcome the prior art rejection of 35 USC 103 in view of the narrowing claim amendment and persuasive arguments from applicant for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to claims 1 and 7, the closest prior art of record was found to be as follows:
Sharma (US 20200126316) – Sharma discloses receiving one or more templates related the clothing and creating a 3D mesh of a garment that is then displayed. Using a digital application the user can input their personal measurements to ensure proper fit of the garment. The article of clothing is then mapped to the user’s avatar and then displayed (see Figures 1-3, paragraphs 0051 and 0054). However, the reference does not disclose a non-fungible token (NFT) issuance unit configured to issue a first NFT for the new digital costume; a sales management unit configured to distribute a portion of the sales amount for the ownership to an original creator of the selected fashion image when the ownership of the first NFT of the user is sold as recited in the claims.
Andon (US 20210258155) - Andon discloses the process of creating and transferring a cryptographic digital asset, such as a pair of shoes. The owner of the asset can be authenticated, a digital copy be generated, and then the digital copy can be sold or leased to users of a virtual environment. The digital assignment may then be used in the virtual environment (shown in Figure 9-10). The reference further discloses a process for assigning a unique NFT operating on a blockchain-based distributed computing platform. (see paragraphs 0039, 0040, 0096, and 0077). However, the reference does disclose the claimed invention, specifically, a non-fungible token (NFT) issuance unit configured to issue a first NFT for the new digital costume; a virtual fitting unit configured to authenticate an ownership of the first NFT through a blockchain electronic wallet and activate a virtual fitting function for the new digital costume only for the user terminal for which authentication of the ownership has been completed; wherein the NFT issuance unit issues a second NFT corresponding to the personalized avatar, and an ownership of the second NFT is sold independently of the ownership of the first NFT, wherein the virtual fitting unit superimposes the new digital costume onto the personalized; avatar in a virtual space and then provides the superimposed augmented reality screen to a user terminal for which authentication of the ownership of the first NFT and the second NFT has been completed.
Meyers (US 20230252255)- Meyers discloses in app NFTs that can be independently sold (see paragraph 0234). These NFTs can be tied to digital assets and sold to others in a game environment. However, the reference does not disclose wherein the NFT issuance unit issues a second NFT corresponding to the personalized avatar, and an ownership of the second NFT is sold independently of the ownership of the first NFT.
Jakobsson (US 20230117399)- Jakobsson discloses a process for determining infringement between two content items in the context of license management within an NFT platform. If infringement is found, then action is taken by the system. (see abstract and 004). However the reference does not disclose wherein the sales management unit compares attributes of the new digital costume with attributes of the selected fashion image for calculating a similarity between the new digital costume and the selected fashion image, increases a ratio of the sales amount distributed to the original creator of the selected fashion image as the similarity between the new digital costume and the selected fashion image increases, and distributes a sales amount for the ownership of the second NFT to the user who has provided the body information corresponding to the personalized avatar when the ownership of the second NFT is sold.
The closes NPL of record was found to be as follows:
“Online Game Marketplace for Online Game Virtual Item Transaction” discloses integrating an online marketplace within gaming. The purpose is to provide e-commerce opportunities within the gaming environment. The goal is to take advantage of the growth of the virtual goods technology. However, the reference discusses the proposed implementation at a high level and does not recite the implementation through the use of NFTs as required by the claims.
As set forth above, the prior art of record discloses portions of the claim, however no reference anticipates the entirety of claim 1 (or 7). Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to piece each of the references together to arrive at the claimed invention. The examiner further notes that alone nor in combination, do the reference disclose the limitation of wherein the sales management unit compares attributes of the new digital costume with attributes of the selected fashion image for calculating a similarity between the new digital costume and the selected fashion image, increases a ratio of the sales amount distributed to the original creator of the selected fashion image as the similarity between the new digital costume and the selected fashion image increases, and distributes a sales amount for the ownership of the second NFT to the user who has provided the body information corresponding to the personalized avatar when the ownership of the second NFT is sold.
Therefore, since no prior art was found to teach claims 1 and 7 alone or in combination, claims 1 and 7 are free of prior art. However, it is noted, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10 and 12 are also free of prior art for the reasons set forth above, however also remain rejected as they depend from claims 1 and 7 and are subject to the rejected under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to Step 2A Prong 1, the examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea. As shown in the updated rejection above, the claims still are directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the “synthesizing a digital representation of the new digital costume” in light of the specification does not appear to be more than a high-level determination of attributes selected as inputs from a user to create an image. Even such, considering this limitation under prong 2, the level of technical detail set forth in the specification states that the process of modification of the attributes of the fashion image selected can be performed by various design tools or other design development programs ([0046]). With respect to the remarks directed to Step 2A, Prong 2, the examiner asserts that the recitation of the user terminal was never characterized as extra solution, but rather a generic additional element. The attribute transformation in light of the specification and as addressed in the preceding remarks, does not provide a level of technical detail which shows the transformation as a technical implementation, but rather a modification through inputs into a generic design tool. The Blockchain and recorded and traded NFTs are also recited at a high level of generality in [0039 and 0041] of the specification. Lastly, the similarity based distribution, while implemented on a computer, makes a determination about the sales function to be carried out in the claimed invention and is part of the abstract idea, not prong 2, practical application. With respect to Step 2B, while the NFT is a technical environment, a solution directed to the transferring of ownership is part of the abstract idea and a sales transaction, not reciting significantly more. The blockchain based access, at the level of technical detail provided, is still a generic implementation. The order of the step of activation, does not appear to impart a technical solution. As stated in the preceding remarks, the automated similarity score is part of the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer component. Lastly, the combination of AR rendering and blockchain verification, does not recite more than the conventional security blockchain provides in a transaction. For at least these reasons, when considering the claims as a whole, remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 9/17/2025