DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claim filed on 22 May 2026.
Claim 1 has been canceled.
Claim 2 had been newly added.
Claim 2 is currently pending and has 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.
Applicant has filed an English translation on 22 May 2026 with a statement reciting, “I commit all the information in this application is truthful…”
(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.
While the statement filed does not use the word “accurate”, the Examiner is interpreting the statement that “all the information in this application is truthful” to mean that the provided English translation is an accurate copy of the foreign application. Therefore acknowledgment of the foreign Japanese filing date (12 December 2022) is made.
Specification
The amendment filed 22 May 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure. The newly filed specification recites:
The computer device described with reference to FIG. 3 is configured to implement the image-processing operations of the data preprocessing block, the shape modification block, the swapping block, and the calibration and optimization block. The clothing image data may be retrieved from the internal memory of the computer device, and the image-processing operations may be performed on the user image, the clothing image and the user height and weight information. According to FIG. 3, 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.
As noted in the 112(a) rejection made in the non-final office action mailed 22 January 2026 the computer device, screen and camera are used to obtain an image of the user. However, nowhere in the originally filed 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 underlined portion above is considered new matter. It is further noted that in the foreign translation documents filed 22 May 2026 that the originally filed specification filed on 27 September 2024 is an accurate copy of the foreign application and is not an error due to the translation.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 2 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 2 recites, “a computer device configured to…generate an output two-dimensional (2D) virtual clothing fitting image by performing an integrated image-processing pipeline…” in lines 3-6. Applicant’s originally filed 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 limitation is considered as new matter.
Claim 2 recites multiple instances of processors (i.e., an image preprocessing processor, a semantic segmentation processor, a neck-axis computation processor, a mesh-based clothing-shape transformation processor, a pixel-wise image extraction and warping processor, a landmark-constrained image compositing processor, a skin-color transfer processor, a geometric calibration and blending processor, and a head-scale calculation processor). However, nowhere in the specification describes any processors or hardware of the computing device. Therefore, the limitations are considered as new matter.
Claim 2 recites multiple instances of networks (i.e., a user face-and-neck semantic segmentation network and a neck-region reconstruction network). However, nowhere in the specification describes any networks. Therefore, the limitations are considered as new matter.
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 2 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 2 recites, “a computer device configured…to generate an output two-dimensional (2D) virtual clothing fitting image by performing an integrated image-processing pipeline” in lines 3-6. As recited in the claim the term “integrated image-processing pipeline” is a process in which the computer device is performing in order to generate the 2D virtual clothing fitting image and recites a series of operations in lines 8-14. However, lines 15-16 of claim 2 recites, “wherein the integrated image-processing pipeline comprises an image preprocessing processor.” It is unclear how a hardware component such as a processor can also be an operation in which the computer device is configured to perform, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 2 recites a first instance of “a clothing region, a model region, a surrounding background region” in lines 23-24, and a second instance of “a clothing region, a model region, a surrounding background region” in lines 41-50. It is unclear if these limitations should have antecedent basis to each other or if they are two different limitations.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the detected facial landmarks" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites, “the detected facial landmarks” in line 26, and “detecting…facial landmarks” in lines 32-33. It is unclear if both limitations are the same detection step or if they are two different detection steps.
Claim 2 recites, “generating a jawline” in line 26, and “generating a jawline” in line 63. It is unclear if both limitations are the same generating step or if they are two different generating steps.
Claim 2 recites, “a semantic segmentation processor” in line 41 and again in line 47. It is unclear if both limitations are the same or are two different semantic processors.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the segmentation module" in line 47. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the facial and body landmark determination module" in lines 52-53. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mid-neck axis determination module" in lines 57-58. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the face classification module" in line 98. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “a user face-and-neck semantic segmentation network” and “a neck-region reconstruction network”. It is unclear what are the metes and bounds of the limitation “network” because the term is not being used as its ordinary meaning (i.e., a group of communicating computers). Both uses of the term “network” corresponds the network to a module, which is a single entity. Furthermore, the term “module” is a non-structural term, which does not provide any additional definition to the term. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 2 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). It is noted the above rejections to claim 2 are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language that require correction.
There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 2. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 are moot under new grounds of rejection.
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 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 3648
Prosecution Insights