DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claim filed on 27 September 2024.
Claim 1 is currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Vietnamese on 03 October 2023. It is noted, the applicant has filed a certified copy of the VN1-2023-06888 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
However, the English language translation of a non-English language foreign application must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
According to 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g):
(3) An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When specifically required by the examiner.
(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
As in accordance to 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(iii), the English translation of a non-English language foreign application is required when specifically required by the examiner. Examiner is requiring the filing of the certified English translation due to pertinent art filed between the U.S. filing date (21 December 2023) and the foreign Japanese filing date (12 December 2022).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 12 of claim 1 recites, “the boundary,” which is a typographical error of “a boundary.”
Line 13 recites “the clothing images,” lines 13-14 recites “the clothing image,” and lines 16 and 17 recite “the clothing image,” which is a typographical error of “the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images.”
Line 17 of claim 1 recites, “the input for the mid-,” which is a typographical error of “an input to the mid-.”
Line 24 of claim 1 recites, “the pixel coordinates on the image,” which is a typographical error of “pixel coordinates.”
Line 25 of claim 1 recites, “the pixel coordinates on the structural element S,” which is a typographical error of “pixel coordinates on structural element S.”
Line 28 of claim 1 recites, “jawlineext(x,y)” which is a typographical error of “the jawlineext(x,y).”
Line 28 of claim 1 recites, “the pixel value,” which is a typographical error of “a pixel value.”
Line 29 of claim 1 recites, “the pixel value,” which is a typographical error of “a pixel value.”
Line 32 of claim 1 recites, “the chin area,” which is a typographical error of “a chin area.”
Lines 32-33 of claim 1 recites, “the segmented neck region,” which is a typographical error of “a segmented neck region.”
Line 39 of claim 1 recites, “the chin are,” which is a typographical error of “the chin area.”
Line 39 of claim 1 recites, “the mid-neck axis,” which is a typographical error of “a mid-neck axis.”
Line 50 of claim 1 recites, “the face shape,” which is a typographical error of “a face shape.”
Line 56 of claim 1 recites, “the shape modification block,” which is a typographical error of “a shape modification block.”
Line 58 of claim 1 recites, “the three-dimensional (3D) human mesh model,” which is a typographical error of “a three-dimensional (3D) human mesh model.”
Line 60 of claim 1 recites, “coefficient determination module 103,” which is a typographical error of “coefficient determination module.”
Line 70 of claim 1 recites, “obtained in the three-,” which is a typographical error of “obtained from the three-.”
Line 71 of claim 1 recites, “human data estimation module 301,” which is a typographical error of “human data estimation module 301.”
Line 88 of claim 1 recites, “the user neck region,” which is a typographical error of “a user neck region.”
Appropriate correction is required.
It is noted the above claim objections are representative of the many typographical errors that appear in claim 1. Overall, the claim is narrative in form and replete with typographical errors that require correction.
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.
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:
“data processing block” performing the functions of process, normalize, and standardize input images, and identify and segment regions on user images and two-dimensional (2D) images as recited in claim 1.
“segmentation module” performing the function of identify the boundary…as recited in claim 1;
“facial and body landmark determination module” performing the function of identify and classify facial and body landmarks…as recited in claim 1;
“face classification module” performing the function of calculate parameters…as recited in claim 1;
“three-dimensional (3D) human data estimation module” performing the function of determine a three-dimensional (3D) human mesh model…as recited in claim 1;
“two-dimensional (2D) mesh surface generation module” performing the function of generate a three-dimensional (3D) mesh model…as recited in claim 1;
“two-dimensional (2D) image extraction module” performing the function of project the three-dimensional (3D) human mesh model…as recited in claim 1;
“user neck-and-face segmentation module” performing the function of divide a portrait image…as recited in claim 1;
“user facial landmark detection module” performing the function of extract sixty-eight two-dimensional (2D) coordinates of key points…as recited in claim 1;
“user occluded neck reconstruction module” performing the function of identify and restore a user neck region…as recited in claim 1;
“user head size adjustment module” performing the function of adjust the appropriate head ratio…as recited in claim 1;
“user head position calculation module” performing the function of adjust the user head position…as recited in claim 1;
“user and model face type comparison module” performing the function of compares the face type information…as recited in claim 1;
“user head position and size adjustment module” performing the function of receives information…to calculate a new transformation matrix…as recited in claim 1;
“seamless skin color processing module” performing the function of uses the Poisson equation combined with the Dirichlet boundary condition…as recited in claim 1.
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a data preprocessing block, a segmentation module, a facial and body landmark determination module, a face classification module, a segmentation module, a facial and body landmark determination module, a face classification module, a three-dimensional (3D) human data estimation module, a two-dimensional (2D) mesh surface generation module, a two-dimensional (2D) image extraction module, a user neck-and-face segmentation module, a user facial landmark detection module, a user occluded neck reconstruction module, a user head size adjustment module, a user head position calculation module, a user and model face type comparison module, a user head position and size adjustment module, and a seamless skin color processing module, which are used to perform the functions recited in the Claim Interpretation section above, and invokes 112(f). However, the corresponding structure required to perform the functions above is not described in the specification. Applicant’s specification recites:
According to FIG. 3, the input block collects data using a computer device with a screen and a camera. The user enters the height and weight into the device, and then a photo of the user is taken using a camera mounted on top of the device at 1.7 – 2m from the user to the device. The clothing image data is collected from the device’s internal memory.
As noted by the specification the computer device, screen and camera are used to obtain an image of the user. However, nowhere in the specification describes any processors or computing devices used to perform the image processing techniques and apply machine learning models to the user images. Therefore, the specification fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 recites a data preprocessing block, a segmentation module, a facial and body landmark determination module, a face classification module, a segmentation module, a facial and body landmark determination module, a face classification module, a three-dimensional (3D) human data estimation module, a two-dimensional (2D) mesh surface generation module, a two-dimensional (2D) image extraction module, a user neck-and-face segmentation module, a user facial landmark detection module, a user occluded neck reconstruction module, a user head size adjustment module, a user head position calculation module, a user and model face type comparison module, a user head position and size adjustment module, and a seamless skin color processing module, which are used to perform the functions recited in the Claim Interpretation section above, and invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not provide any corresponding structure/algorithm in order to implement the extracting performed by the first computing device. It is noted the term “device” is considered to be a nonce term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outputs of the segmentation and facial and body landmark determination module" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the outputs” refers to the boundary between the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images and model identified by the segmentation module and the facial and body landmarks identified and classified by the facial and body landmark determination module, or if it refers to other functions that can be performed by the modules.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the landmarks" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the landmarks” refers to the facial landmarks and/or the body landmarks.
Claim 1 recites, “a line drawn between these points” in line 20. It is unclear if a line is drawn between all nine points recited in line 19 or if a line is drawn between two or more points of the nine points.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the image depicting the jawline" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the image” refers to the input images, the user images, the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images, and/or another image.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the correlated pixels" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the correlated pixels” refers to the pixel value after extension at coordinates (x,y), the pixel value of the structural element at coordinates (i,j), or if it a correlation of pixel values between coordinates (x,y) and coordinates (i,j).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the image representing the jawline and the structural element" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the image” refers to the input images, the user images, the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images, the image depicting the jawline, and/or another image.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "it is assumed" in line 37 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" in line 48 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites, “these parameter values” in line 50. It is unclear if it is referring to all of parameters listed in lines 48-49 (i.e., forehead width, cheekbone width, chin width, and face length), one or more of the parameters listed in lines 48-49, or another parameter not listed in lines 48-49.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the individual being examined" in lines 50-51 and “the user” in lines 96, 106, 107, 108, and etc. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if “the individual” and “the user” are the same person or are different people. It is also unclear if the individual and user are the same or different from the user who is in the images recited in line 6.
Claim 1 recites “an objective function similar to the model coefficient determination module” in lines 59-60. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear since claim 1 does not recite any functions being performed by the model coefficient determination module. Furthermore, the term “similar to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the objective functions of Eweight, Eheight, and Eβ in line 61. Neither the claim nor the specification defines the three objective functions making the metes and bounds of the claim to be unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the model coefficient information" in lines 62-63. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the image representing the jawline and the structural element" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the image” refers to the input images, the user images, the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images, the image depicting the jawline, and/or another image.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the portrait image" in line 81. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the portrait image” refers to the input images, the user images, the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images, the image depicting the jawline, the image representing the jawline and the structural element and/or another image.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user face image" in line 85. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the user face image” refers to the input images, the user images, the image depicting the jawline, the image representing the jawline and the structural element, the portrait image and/or another image.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cloth image" in line 106. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the cloth image” refers to the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images, if it is one image of the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images, and/or is another image.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the image" in line 109. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the portrait image” refers to the input images, the user images, the two-dimensional (2D) clothing images, the image depicting the jawline, the image representing the jawline and the structural element, the portrait image, the user face image, the portrait image and/or another image.
Claim 1 recites “a new transformation matrix M similar to the image swapping module” in lines 115-116. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear since claim 1 does not recite any functions being performed by the image swapping module. Furthermore, the term “similar to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “A seamless skin color processing module uses the Poisson equation combined with the Dirichlet boundary condition; the gradient field value in the composite image region is calculated and adjusted to…” in lines 117-120. It is unclear for what the module uses the Poisson equation combined with the Dirichlet boundary condition. It is also unclear if the Poisson equation combined with the Dirichlet boundary condition is used to calculate the gradient field value.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 1. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims (see MPEP 2173.06). Therefore, a prior art rejection will not be made for claim 1.
Subject Matter Eligibility
Claim 1 is considered to be directed to eligible subject matter. The limitations recite the specific way in which image processing techniques are used to virtually trying on clothing and goes beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Conclusion
As noted in the rejections above, a prior art rejection was not made for claim 1. However, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitchell et al. (US 2017/0352092 A1): Discloses images of garments superimposed over an image of the user, where virtual fit points of each garment image align with virtual fit points on the image of the user.
Ray et al. (US 2017/0083971 A1): discloses management of data of three dimensional body scanning image data obtained from scanning booths to make comparisons to garment sizes.
Jackson et al. (US 2017/0046769 A1): discloses a garment model of a body shape where the garment model takes into account the visual and mechanical characteristics of the fabric as well as the drape of the fabric on a body shape.
Steermann (US 2014/0279289 A1): discloses mobile application enabling an online shopper to see how an item of clothing will look on them based on their size, body shape, and skin tone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628