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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 10, 21 and 24 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.
Claim 10 recites, 3 times, “the knitting machine” in lines 4 and 5. It is unclear which knitting machine the Applicant refers to as there are recitations to (1) “a plurality of knitting machines” in line 2 and (2) “an optimal knitting machine” in line 3. For the purpose of applying art, the recitation “the knitting machine” will be treated as the optimal knitting machine.
Claim 21 recites “the production subsystem” in lines 4, 5 and 6. It is unclear which production subsystem the Applicant refers to as there are recitations to (1)“a network of production subsystems” in line 1 and (2) “an optimal production subsystem” in line 3. For the purpose of applying art, the recitation “the production subsystem” will be treated as the optimal production subsystem.
Claim 24 recites “the production subsystem” in lines 12 and 13. It is unclear which production subsystem the Applicant refers to as there are recitations to (1)“a network of production subsystems” in line 7 and (2) “an optimal production subsystem” in line 11. For the purpose of applying art, the recitation “the production subsystem” will be treated as the optimal production subsystem.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choche (US 2020/0402126).
Regarding claim 12, Choche teaches a system for producing a customized garment for a subject, comprising:
a body scanner (fig. 13A, para. [0069], mobile camera) configured to capture a digital representation of a subject;
a computing unit running a user interface operably connectable to the body scanner (para. [0070]), the user interface configured to:
extract measurements and generate a shape analysis of the subject from the digital representation of the subject (para. [0072], the digital file system may predict body metrics of the user from the submitted photo);
display a digital body (fig. 13B) produced from the extracted measurements and shape analysis,
produce a custom pattern (fig. 12, para. [0081]) from the extracted measurements and shape analysis,
display the custom pattern on the digital body (fig. 13B, para. [0078]), and
generate production instructions from the custom pattern (fig. 1, the custom digital file is transmitted to manufacture system 114); and
a production subsystem (fig. 2, manufacturer system 114) operably connectable to the user interface configured to produce at least a portion of the customized garment in accordance with the production instructions (fig. 2, para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Choche teaches the body scanner is a camera on a smart phone (para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Choche teaches the computing unit is a smart phone or computer (para. [0025], [0067]).
Regarding claim 22, Choche teaches a method of facilitating customized garment production for a subject, comprising providing a user interface (para. [0070]) configured to:
extract measurements and generate a shape analysis of the subject from a digital representation of the subject (para. [0072], the digital file system may predict body metrics of the user from the submitted photo),
display a digital body (fig. 13B) produced from the extracted measurements and shape analysis,
produce a custom pattern (fig. 12, para. [0081]) from the extracted measurements and shape analysis,
display the custom pattern on the digital body (fig. 13B, para. [0078]), and
generate production instructions from the custom pattern (fig. 2, para. [0028]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoma (US 2025/0146192).
Regarding claim 1, Thoma teaches a method of producing a customized garment for a subject, comprising:
acquiring a plurality of physical parameters from the subject (figs. 5-6, para. [0009], [0037], [0038], receiving body data); providing the plurality of physical parameters to an artificial neural network trained to extract measurement (fig. 6, para. [0040]) and define a shape analysis of the subject to produce a digital body (para. [0040], [0041]);
responsive to the extracted measurement and shape analysis, producing a custom pattern (fig. 6, panel shapes 570 are formed) ;
displaying the custom pattern on the digital body (para. [0041], steps 580, 585, panel shapes after being processed by a shape correction algorithm at 580 are exported for virtual fit simulation and assessment);
generating production instruction from the custom pattern (fig. 7, step 660); and
directing the production instructions to a machine programmed to produce at least a portion of the customized garment in accordance with the production instructions (fig. 7, para. [0046]).
Thoma does not teach the method using a knitting machine.
However, Thoma teaches knitting is also used in making textile products (para. [0004], [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the method of Thoma in manufacturing knitted products by using a knitting machine for the benefit of producing knitted products with flexibility and stretch on demand based on the user’s body data or measurement (Thoma, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method Thoma teaches the plurality of physical parameters are acquired through a body scan of the subject (figs. 5-7, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method Thoma teaches acquiring a garment type selection from the subject (fig. 7, para. [0042], order information 610) and producing the custom pattern responsive to the extracted measurements, shape analysis, and the garment type selection (fig. 7, weave shape file 650 is formed from order information 610, body data 630 and shape generation 640).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method Thoma teaches generating post-knitting instructions from the custom pattern and directing the post-knitting instructions to a post-knitting subsystem programmed to produce a remaining portion of the customized garment in accordance with the post-knitting instructions (fig. 7, para. [0046], step 695).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoma (US 2025/0146192), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choche (US 2020/0402126).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method Thoma does not clearly teach providing at least two customization options associated with the custom pattern; acquiring a selection of at least one customization option; responsive to the selection of the at least one customization option, producing an updated custom pattern; displaying the updated custom pattern on the digital body; and generating the production instructions from the updated custom pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Choche teaches providing at least two customization options (figs. 12, 13B, para. [0078]) associated with the custom pattern; acquiring a selection of at least one customization option (figs. 12, 13B); responsive to the selection of the at least one customization option, producing an updated custom pattern (para. [0078]); displaying the updated custom pattern on the digital body (para. [0078]); and generating the production instructions from the updated custom pattern (fig. 1, para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Thoma with the user interface as taught by Choche for the benefit of providing visualization of the garment represented by the custom digital file in a retail environment so that the customer can make a series of customization selections by using the application (Choche, para. [0078]).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoma (US 2025/0146192), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jackson (US 2017/0046769).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method Thoma does not clearly teach displaying the digital body, and responsive to a rejection of the digital body, acquiring new physical parameters of the subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jackson teaches displaying the digital body (fig. 12B, 9A, para. [0186]) and responsive to a rejection of the digital body, acquiring new physical parameters of the subject (para. [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Thoma with the validation system as taught by Jackson for the benefit of providing a complete body model, representing a specific user (Jackson, para. [0085]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method Thoma does not clearly teach storing the digital body and the custom pattern on a memory storage unit.
However, Jackson teaches storing the digital body and the custom pattern on a memory storage unit (figs. 2A-2C, para. [0084], [0089], memory 211C, 211D).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Thoma with storing the digital body and the custom pattern on a memory storage unit as taught by Jackson so that the details about the garment, body measurement are made available to other elements of the system (Jackson, para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method Thoma-Jackson does not teach storing a plurality of digital bodies from a plurality of users and a plurality of custom patterns on a database.
However, Jackson teaches storing a plurality of digital bodies from a plurality of users (para. [0085]) and a plurality of custom patterns on a database (para. [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Thoma-Jackson with the teaching that storing a plurality of digital bodies from a plurality of users and a plurality of custom patterns on a database as taught by Jackson so that the system can derive common body shape groupings, and body shape configurations from such data, which populates the body basis shapes (Jackson, para. [0085]); and pattern store can be used during garment generation (Jackson, para. [0079]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method Thoma-Jackson does not teach providing at least one recommended customization option associated with the custom pattern, the at least one recommended customization option generated responsive to the plurality of custom patterns stored on the database, wherein the at least one recommended customization option is associated with at least one similar digital body from another subject.
However, Jackson teaches providing at least one recommended customization option associated with the custom pattern (claim 28, para. [0065]), the at least one recommended customization option generated responsive to the plurality of custom patterns stored on the database (para. [0100], preference store 294 stores the data relevant to the user. In one embodiment, the system stores the matched body shapes, users, and preferences of the user. This data is used when making recommendations), wherein the at least one recommended customization option is associated with at least one similar digital body from another subject (para. [0065], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Thoma-Jackson with personalized recommendation system as taught by Jackson for the benefit of providing a mechanism to enable matching of representations, which enables a matching of garments that would fit similarly (Jackson, para. [0063]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoma (US 2025/0146192), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of deGuzman (US 2020/0008502).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method Thoma does not teach directing the production instructions to an order management system operably connected to a plurality of knitting machines, the order management system programmed to direct the production instructions to an optimal knitting machine response to criteria selected from location of the knitting machine, capabilities of the knitting machine, and availability of materials associated with the knitting machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, deGuzman teaches directing the production instructions to an order management system (fig. 12, apparel apparatus 1201) operably connected to a plurality of knitting machines (fig. 12, para. [0132]), the order management system programmed to direct the production instructions to an optimal knitting machine (para. [0136]) response to criteria selected from location of the knitting machine, capabilities of the knitting machine, and availability of materials associated with the knitting machine (para. [0136]-[0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Thoma with the apparel apparatus 1201 as taught by deGuzman for the benefit of increasing efficiency by which custom, on-demand knitted articles are manufactured and enabling user to choose from a wider variety of knitted articles (deGuzman, para. [0138]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method Thoma does not teach the production instructions include instructions to incorporate a unique identifier in the at least a portion of the customized garment.
However, deGuzman teaches the knitwear details include identifier of the customer, which gives the production team the information they need to knit a piece of knitwear on the machine (para. [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Thoma with the teaching that the production instructions include instructions to incorporate a unique identifier in the at least a portion of the customized garment as taught by deGuzman for the benefit of giving the production team information that can be associated with the garment through its production for record-keeping purposes (deGuzman, para. [0104]).
Claims 15-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choche (US 2020/0402126), as applied to claims 12 and 22 above, and further in view of Gerson (US 2023/0276888).
Regarding claim 15, Choche does not teach the production subsystem comprises a knitting machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gerson teaches a system for manufacturing a custom knitted garment, which comprises a knitting machine (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Choche with a knitting machine as taught by Gerson for the benefit of producing knitted products with flexibility and stretch on demand based on the user’s body data or measurement (Gerson, abstract).
Regarding claim 16, the modified structure Choche-Gerson does not teach the production subsystem further comprises a thermoform and/or a 3D printer.
However, Gerson teaches the production subsystem comprises a 3D printer (para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Choche-Gerson with a 3D printer as taught by Gerson for the benefit of providing on-demand production of custom designs, enhanced durability by reducing or eliminating seams and increased sustainability due to less material waste.
Regarding claim 23, Choche teaches a manufacturer system connectable to the user interface configured to produce at least a portion of the customized garment in accordance with the production instructions (fig. 1).
Choche does not teach the manufacture system comprises a knitting machine.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gerson teaches a system for manufacturing a custom knitted garment, which comprises a knitting machine (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Choche with a knitting machine as taught by Gerson for the benefit of producing knitted products with flexibility and stretch on demand based on the user’s body data or measurement (Gerson, abstract).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choche (US 2020/0402126), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Jackson (US 2017/0046769).
Regarding claim 17, Choche teaches the computing unit is operably connected to a memory storage device (para. [0060]).
Choche does not teach the memory storage device programmed to store the digital body and the custom pattern.
However, Jackson teaches the memory storage device programmed to store the digital body and the custom pattern (figs. 2A-2C, para. [0084], [0089], memory 211C, 211D).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Choche with the memory storage device programmed to store the digital body and the custom pattern as taught by Jackson so that the details about the garment, body measurement are made available to other elements of the system (Jackson, para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified structure Choche-Jackson does not teach the memory storage device is a cloud-based memory storage.
However, Jackson teaches the memory storage device is a cloud-based memory storage (para. [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Choche-Jackson with a cloud-based memory storage as taught by Jackson for the benefit of providing accessibility, scalability, cost-effectiveness, security and reliability.
Regarding claim 19, Choche does not teach the computing unit is operably connected to a database programmed to store a plurality of digital bodies from a plurality of users and a plurality of custom patterns.
However, Jackson teaches a database programmed to store a plurality of digital bodies from a plurality of users (para. [0085]) and a plurality of custom patterns (para. [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Choche with a database programmed to store a plurality of digital bodies from a plurality of users and a plurality of custom patterns as taught by Jackson so that the system can derive common body shape groupings, and body shape configurations from such data, which populates the body basis shapes (Jackson, para. [0085]); and pattern store can be used during garment generation (Jackson, para. [0079]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified structure Choche-Jackson does not teach the user interface is configured to provide at least one recommended customization option responsive to the plurality of custom patterns.
However, Jackson teaches providing at least one recommended customization option (claim 28, para. [0065]) responsive to the plurality of custom patterns (para. [0100], preference store 294 stores the data relevant to the user. In one embodiment, the system stores the matched body shapes, users, and preferences of the user. This data is used when making recommendations).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Choche-Jackson with personalized recommendation system as taught by Jackson for the benefit of providing a mechanism to enable matching of representations, which enables a matching of garments that would fit similarly (Jackson, para. [0063]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choche (US 2020/0402126), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of deGuzman (US 2020/0008502).
Regarding claim 21, Choche does not teach a network of production subsystems and an order management system operably connectable to the computing unit, the order management system programmed to direct the production instructions to an optimal production subsystem within the network of production subsystems responsive to criteria selected from location of the production subsystem, capabilities of the production subsystem, and availability of materials associated with the production subsystem.
However, deGuzman teaches a network of production subsystems (fig. 12, para. [0136]) and an order management system (fig. 12, apparel apparatus 1201) operably connectable to the computing unit (fig. 12, para. [0132]), the order management system programmed to direct the production instructions to an optimal production subsystem within the network of production subsystems (para. [0136]) response to criteria selected from location of the production subsystem, capabilities of the production subsystem, and availability of materials associated with the production subsystem (para. [0136]-[0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Choche with the apparel apparatus 1201 as taught by deGuzman for the benefit of increasing efficiency by which custom, on-demand knitted articles are manufactured and enabling user to choose from a wider variety of knitted articles (deGuzman, para. [0138]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choche (US 2020/0402126) in view of deGuzman (US 2020/0008502).
Regarding claim 24, Choche teaches a system for producing a customized garment for a subject (abstract), comprising:
an order management system (fig. 1) operably connectable to a computing unit running a user interface (para. [0070]), the user interface configured: to extract measurements and generate a shape analysis of the subject from a digital representation of the subject captured from a body scanner (para. [0070], [0072], the digital file system may predict body metrics of the user from the submitted photo), produce a custom pattern (fig. 12, para. [0081]) from the extracted measurements and shape analysis, and generate production instructions from the custom pattern (fig. 1, the custom digital file is transmitted to manufacture system 114).
Choche does not teach a network of production subsystems operably connectable to the order management system configured to produce at least a portion of the customized garment in accordance with the production instructions and the order management system programmed to direct the production instructions to an optimal production subsystem within the network of production subsystems responsive to criteria selected from location of the production subsystem, capabilities of the production subsystem, and availability of materials associated with the production subsystem.
However, deGuzman teaches a network of production subsystems operably connectable to the order management system configured to produce at least a portion of the customized garment in accordance with the production instructions (fig. 12, para. [0136]) and the order management system (fig. 12, apparel apparatus 1201) programmed to direct the production instructions to an optimal production subsystem within the network of production subsystems (para. [0136]) response to criteria selected from location of the production subsystem, capabilities of the production subsystem, and availability of materials associated with the production subsystem (para. [0136]-[0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Choche with the apparel apparatus 1201 as taught by deGuzman for the benefit of increasing efficiency by which custom, on-demand knitted articles are manufactured and enabling user to choose from a wider variety of knitted articles (deGuzman, para. [0138]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732