DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims recite the steps of “making one or more” body measurements, “estimating one or more” indirect measurements, and “generating the selected custom-fit garment pattern” based on the measurements. This amounts to a mental process of observation, evaluation, and judgment. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). These claim steps recite that one type of measurement is made, and a second type of measurement (such as a dart measurement or a shirt length measurement: Spec. ¶¶ 25-26) is estimated. This is similar to concepts that have been identified as a mental process. Collecting information and drawing conclusions from that information is a process that can reasonably be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That the body measurements are made based on a 3D model does not make this step less abstract: “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Id.
The claims further recite that a garment pattern is produced based on the measured and estimated values. The specification describes this as generating the “points, lines and/or curves” of a pattern diagram. Spec. ¶45. This is merely determining the result of different types of measurements, and is akin to the mental process that a tailor would follow when generating a garment based off of measurements. As such, this is likewise a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations that fall outside of the mental process include creating a 3D body model. This does not improve the functioning of a computer or of the technology for creating a 3D model. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Instead, this step merely links the abstract idea to a technological environment by replacing what would normally be human-gathered body measurements with measurements made based off of a 3D figure. As such, this claim step does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As described above, the only claim limitation that falls outside of the judicial exception describes creating, and basing measurements off of, a 3D model. Official notice is taken that this was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, this limitation is nothing more than well understood, routine, and convention activity, and cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(d). Claims 21 and 22 likewise recite only standard computing components, which are likewise not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-20 all recite further mental processes, mathematical concepts, or only well-known features that do not integrate into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than, the abstract idea.
For example, claims 2-3 recites that a routine form of machine learning is used to create the 3D model; claims 4-8 recite well-known steps for making and measuring a model; claims 9-11 recite further mental steps for estimating an indirect measurement; etc. Claims 12-15 recite the manual steps that a tailor would follow, based on measurements, to generate a custom garment pattern. Claims 16-20 only recite routine activity in this field. These claims recite only further mental processes or mathematical concepts, or only well-known features that do not integrate into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than, the abstract idea, and as such are not patent eligible under §101.
Claim 21 is further rejected under §101 for being directed to software per se.
Claim 21 is directed to “a computer program product for generating custom-fit garment patterns at scale, the computer program product being encoded on one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media and comprising: instructions” for performing various steps. While the claim preamble recites that the instructions are embodied on a non-transitory machine readable storage medium, the body of the claim only recites the content of the instructions. That is, the claim is directed to the data content of the software, rather than describe the functions that this software causes a processor to perform. Claims drawn to “software per se” are not directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention that are described in §101. See MPEP 2106.03 I. To overcome this issue, it is recommended that the claim be amended to recite:
21. (proposed amendment) A containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to
create a three-dimensional body model …
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 1-22 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.
All independent claims recite “making one or more anthropometric measurements for the three-dimensional body model.” This is indefinite. It is not clear if this limitation requires making measurements that are used to generate the 3D model, which the language of the claim suggests, or if it requires making measurements using the already-generated 3D model, which the specification describes. See e.g. Fig. 3B. If the measurements are used to generate the model, it is not clear how this step can be performed subsequent to “creating” the 3D model, as the claim appears to recite. The claims similarly recite “estimating one or more indirect measurements for the three-dimensional model” which is indefinite for similar reasons.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Terry, US 20230104072.
Claim 1: Terry discloses a computer-implemented method for generating custom-fit garment patterns at scale, comprising:
creating a three-dimensional body model for a selected custom-fit garment pattern based upon a body profile for a body shape of an intended wearer (A 3D model of a person is generated as part of a “custom tailor” procedure to produce a custom-fit garment pattern. Terry ¶¶86-88. The 3D model is created based on a body profile and on measurements of the person’s body. See e.g. Terry ¶¶44-50);
making one or more anthropometric measurements for the three-dimensional body model (Measurements for the 3D model are made. Terry ¶¶44 and 51. If this claim limitation requires making measurements to produce the 3D model, this is disclosed in ¶44. If the claim requires making measurements from the 3D model, this is disclosed in ¶51. See the §112(b) rejection above.);
estimating one or more indirect measurements for the three-dimensional body model (Alterations or fabric specifications are generated for the user, and the measurements for a “given alteration/fabric specification” are estimated based on measurements. Terry ¶88. This disclosure meets the BRI of this “estimating” limitation in light of the specification, which describes an example of the “indirect measurements” as clothing measurements, such as dart length or shirt length, that cannot be directly measured from the body measurements of the 3D model. See Spec. ¶¶ 25-26, for example.); and
generating the selected custom-fit garment pattern based upon the body profile with the anthropometric measurements for the three-dimensional body model and the estimated indirect measurements (Terry ¶88).
Claim 2: Terry discloses that creating the three-dimensional body model comprises creating a deep learning model for the selected custom-fit garment pattern (¶¶ 88 and 105).
Claim 4: Terry discloses that creating the three-dimensional body model includes: generating a predetermined number of principal components for reconstructing the body shape of the intended wearer; determining a body gender of the three-dimensional body model; and generating a three-dimensional body shape of the three-dimensional body model with at least one set of vertices and edges (¶42 and Fig. 2).
Claim 5: Terry discloses disposing the three-dimensional body model in a predetermined body model pose (Fig. 2).
Claim 6: Terry discloses that the predetermined body model pose comprises a standard A to T pose (Fig. 2).
Claim 7: Terry discloses that said making the one or more anthropometric measurements includes: defining one or more landmarks on a three-dimensional body shape of the three- dimensional body model; determining one or more predetermined measurements associated with the three- dimensional body shape based upon the defined landmarks (This is implicit in ¶¶49 and 51); and creating a comprehensive body profile for the intended wearer based upon the one or more predetermined measurements (¶¶ 42-44).
Claim 8: Terry discloses that said determining the one or more predetermined measurements includes determining a length measurement associated with the three-dimensional body shape (Body measurements, which include the claimed measurements, are extracted from the 3D model. Terry ¶¶49 and 51).
Claim 9: Terry discloses that said estimating the one or more indirect measurements includes: selecting a specific indirect measurement to be estimated; determining an estimation context for the selected indirect measurement; identifying at least one of the anthropometric measurements for estimating the selected indirect measurement; estimating the selected indirect measurement based upon the estimation context and the at least one of the anthropometric measurements; and adding the estimated indirect measurement to the body profile (The alterations and the custom pattern generation that is described in ¶¶86-89 require these claim steps.).
Claim 17: Terry discloses visualizing the generated custom-fit garment pattern (Fig. 5).
Claims 21 and 22: see rejection of claim 1. Terry further discloses a CRM containing instructions for, and a system for generating custom-fit garment patterns at scale, comprising: a processing circuit being configured for, performing the method of claim 1. See Terry Fig. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of Hadap, US Patent No. 12070093.
Claim 3: Terry fails to disclose, but Hadap discloses, that creating a three-dimensional body model comprises creating a Skinned Multi-Person Linear (or SMPL) model for a selected custom-fit garment pattern (Hadap 3:18-37).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Terry with these teachings in Hadap, the rationale being to create a more accurate model. See Hadap at 5:56-6:21.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry.
Claim 10: Terry does not disclose that estimating the selected indirect measurement comprises estimating the selected indirect measurement via a linear regression model. However, official notice is taken that this was well known in the art before the effective filing date of this invention. For example, many derived measurements such as those described in Terry were known to be accomplished based on a linear regression model. Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Terry to estimate the measurements in this manner, the rationale being to improve accuracy.
Claim 11: Terry does not disclose updating a model registry file associated with the three-dimensional body model to include the estimated indirect measurement. However, official notice is taken that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to update a model with newly-acquired, relevant information. Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Terry to update its model based on the estimated alteration and customization data, the rationale being to save a model having information that is more relevant to the user.
Claims 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of Kuehn, US 20230036395.
Claim 12: Terry does not disclose, but Kuehn discloses, generating a selected custom-fit garment pattern includes:
initializing a structure of the custom-fit garment pattern (A template (initial structure) is obtained. ¶81);
calculating one or more points for the structure of the custom-fit garment pattern; creating an action list for the one or more calculated points (Various points on the pattern are determined, and actions to be taken relative to the points are determined. ¶¶ 94-95 and 103);
dividing one or more lines associated with the structure of the custom-fit garment pattern into at least one line type; and dividing one or more curves associated with the structure of the custom-fit garment pattern into at least one curve type (¶¶ 94-95).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Terry with teachings in Kuehn, the rationale being to generate a more accurate custom garment pattern.
Claim 13 Terry-Kuehn discloses that said calculating the one or more points includes calculating at least one absolute point for the structure of the custom-fit garment pattern (Kuehn ¶94) .
Claim 14: Terry-Kuehn discloses that said dividing the one or more lines comprises dividing the one or more lines associated with the structure of the custom-fit garment pattern into at least one line type based upon the one or more calculated points; and wherein said dividing the one or more curves comprises dividing the one or more curves associated with the structure of the custom-fit garment pattern into at least one curve type based upon the one or more calculated points (Kuehn ¶¶ 94-95 and 110-112).
Claim 15: Terry-Kuehn discloses that said creating the action list comprises creating a series of equations that are configured to output the one or more lines associated with the structure of the custom-fit garment and the one or more curves associated with the structure of the custom-fit garment (Kuehn ¶¶ 110-111).
Claim 16: Terry-Kuehn discloses that the series of equations includes at least one variable that comprises a selected anthropometric measurement for the three-dimensional body model (Terry ¶41, Kuehn ¶ 45).
Claim 18: Terry-Kuehn discloses that said visualizing the generated custom-fit garment pattern includes: constructing the generated custom-fit garment pattern in two dimensions; and generating a two-dimensional plot of the constructed custom-fit garment pattern (Kuehn Fig. 21 shows coordinates of the custom garment pattern, thus is a visualization of a 2D plot of the pattern).
Claim 19 and 20: Kuehn discloses exporting the constructed custom-fit garment pattern, including exporting the constructed custom-fit garment pattern in a Portable Document Format (or .PDF) format, a Scalable Vector Graphics (or .SVG) format or a Drawing Exchange Format (or .DXF) (Kuehn ¶66).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992