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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/3/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/5/25.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The abstract is 157 words, and should be between 50 to 150 words.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 12 Lines 2-3 recite “one or more processors” which is considered new matter. No support is found in the disclosure that there is more than one processor.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “second dart” and “first dart” in Claim 1 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the terms relate to “at least one dart” in Claim 1 Line 1. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, examiner recommends that Claim 1 Line 1 (preamble) recite a first dart and a second dart, especially as the claim is a comprising claim.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 12-13 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 2-3.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 12-13 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “duplicate pattern pieces” in Claim 1 Line 2. Especially as a comprising claim, examiner may recommend claiming first pattern piece, second pattern piece, third pattern piece, etc, for clarity.
Relatedly, the term “the pattern piece” in Claim 1 Line 14 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 2-3, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” or instances of “duplicate pattern pieces” throughout the claims.
Relatedly, the term “the pattern piece” in Claim 1 Line 15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 2-3, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” or instances of “duplicate pattern pieces” throughout the claims.
Relatedly, the term “the pattern piece” in Claim 1 Line 16 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 2-3, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” or instances of “duplicate pattern pieces” throughout the claims.
The term “changing a width of the first dart by rotating one of the duplicate pattern pieces around the pivot point” in Claim 2 Lines 5-6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this differs from Claim 1 Lines 14-15 “generating the second dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart that is changed by rotating at least a portion of the pattern piece around the pivot point”. Is Claim 2 meant to differ because it refers to the duplicates? If so, it is unclear where in the specification the non-duplicate was rotated while the duplicate was also rotated. Was this limitation in Claim 2 inadvertently not cancelled?
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 2 Line 8 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 2-3, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” or instances of “duplicate pattern pieces” throughout the claims.
The term “generating, in the pattern piece, the second dart to which the determined width of the second dart is applied” in Claim 2 Lines 8-9 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this recitation differs from Claim 1 Lines 14-15 “generating the second dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart that is changed by rotating at least a portion of the pattern piece around the pivot point”. Is this limitation merely clarifying “wherein the generating of the second dart comprises generating the determined width of the second dart”?
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 4 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 2-3, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” or instances of “duplicate pattern pieces” throughout the claims.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 8 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 1 Lines 2-3, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” or instances of “duplicate pattern pieces” throughout the claims.
The term “second depth” in Claim 11 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. There cannot be a second depth without a first depth, which is not claimed.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 12 Lines 10-11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to Claim 12 Line 6 “at least one pattern piece” and Claim 12 Line 10 “duplicate pattern pieces”, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” throughout the claim.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 12 Line 12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to Claim 12 Line 6 “at least one pattern piece” and Claim 12 Line 10 “duplicate pattern pieces”, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” throughout the claim.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 12 Line 13 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to Claim 12 Line 6 “at least one pattern piece” and Claim 12 Line 10 “duplicate pattern pieces”, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” throughout the claim.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 12 Line 14 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to Claim 12 Line 6 “at least one pattern piece” and Claim 12 Line 10 “duplicate pattern pieces”, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” throughout the claim.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 13 Line 10 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 13 Line 4, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” throughout the claims.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 13 Lines 10-11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 13 Line 4, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” throughout the claims.
The term “the pattern piece” in Claim 13 Line 13 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “at least one pattern piece” in Claim 13 Line 4, let alone other instances of “the pattern piece” throughout the claims.
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 8.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, enumerated grouping of abstract models (ideas) to analyze and model a pattern piece for improvement of the pattern piece without significantly more. For example, Claim 1 (and Claims 12 and 13 similarly) recites:
A method of displaying at least one dart on at least one pattern piece, comprising:
receiving a position of a second dart to be generated in association with a first dart included in at least one pattern piece that forms a garment (additional element);
setting a pivot point by an intersection point between a first extension line extending from the first dart and second extension line extending from a point where the second dart is to be generated (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper);
generating a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper);
generating the second dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart hat is changed by rotating at least a portion of the pattern piece around the pivot point (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper); and
displaying, through a display device, the pattern piece including the generated second dart (additional element).
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”), we, as patent examiners, are supposed to determine under Alice step 1 or “Step 2A” to whether the claim recites:
(1) Prong One: any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., [i] mathematical concepts, [ii] mental processes, or [iii] certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
(2) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)—(h)). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, 55, Revised Step 2A, Prong One (Abstract Idea) and Prong Two (Integration into A Practical Application). Only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then evaluate whether the claim provides an “inventive concept” under Alice step 2 or “Step 2B.” See 2019 Revised Guidance at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. For example, we look to whether the claim:
(1) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional’ in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(2) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Step 2A-Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Revised Guidance
Step 2A, Prong One
Turning now to the first step of the Alice inquiry, with the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 relates to a mental process for 1) setting a pivot point, 2) generating a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces, and 3) generating the second dart. Such setting and generating can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Since the limitation steps can be visualized and performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper, the claim is considered a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
Under Prong Two of the Revised Guidance, the claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, we identify any additional claim limitations beyond the judicial exception and evaluate the additional limitations individually and in combination for determining whether these limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional claim limitations are 1) receiving a position and 2) displaying a pattern piece. However, both the “receiving” and “displaying” step is insignificant pre-solution activity. Claim 12 reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions” and “one or more processors” are computer-related components recited at a high level of generality and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Similarly, Claim 13 reciting an apparatus, a user interface, a processor, and an output device similarly are computer-related components recited at a high level of generality and do not meaningfully limit the claim. As such, the claim does not integrate these features into a real and practical solution of the real applications. As such, no additional element (or combination of elements) in the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Alice/Mayo—Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
Step 2B identified in the Revised Guidance
In the second step of the Alice inquiry, claim 1 does not contain any “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
The “receiving” of data and “displaying a pattern piece” steps are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, Claim 1 is non statutory subject matter.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10 is still related to the Step 2A, Prong One abstract idea of a mental process, and therefore merely further limit the abstract idea with mental processes, including Claim 6 “rotating” and “changing”.
Furthermore, Claim 7 recites “calculating” which is furthermore directed to an abstract idea of mathematical concept/calculation for Step 2A, Prong One. The step of “determining” in Claim 7 is further related to such an abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 11 further recite “receiving” data which are considered non statutory subject matter for reasons similarly aforementioned.
The other similar limitations of Claims 12-14, 16-20 are similarly rejected for reasons aforementioned.
Dependent claims are also rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims without resolving the 101 issues.
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.
FIRST REJECTION: As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrak (USPN 3803717) in view of Lastra et al (USPN 8249738), herein Lastra.
Regarding Claim 1, Mrak teaches a method of displaying at least one dart on at least one pattern piece (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- as such, see title "method of transferring and directing the darts in a dress pattern"; see also Figs. 1-6; inasmuch as the pattern piece exists, the pattern piece would be displayed with the second dart), comprising:
receiving a position of a second dart to be generated in association with a first dart included in the at least one pattern piece that forms a garment (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Col. 3 Lines 19-24 "location of the new dart is positioned on the pattern at a location which best suits and/or complements the wearer's figure or as required by an individual design. In Fig. 2, the centerline of the new dart is located along line 21 substantially perpendicular to the shoulder seam", wherein first dart is Col. 3 Line 27 "old dart 14"; wherein receiving a position of second dart is met with the existence of centerline 21);
setting a pivot point by an intersection point between a first extension line (14A) extending from the first dart and a second extension line (21) extending from a point where the second dart is to be generated (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 3; Col. 3 Lines 30-35 "intersection of the centerline 14A of the old dart with the centerline 21 of the new dart…crossing of the two centerlines thus defines a pivot point or point apex 22"),
generating a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces (23, 24) that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; wherein 23 and 24 are duplicates inasmuch as these new portions are duplicates of regions in the original pattern piece);
generating the second dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart that is changed by rotating at least a portion of the pattern piece around the pivot point (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; Col. 3 Lines 46-49 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction about pivot apex 22 to effect the closing of the old dart 14"; Col. 3 Lines 54-56 "in doing so the new dart 27 is now open or transferred"; see Figs. 5, 6 for changing of the first dart width therefore new dart 27 width is generated based on the closing of the first dart width from rotating); and
displaying the pattern piece including the generated second dart (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Figs. 1-6; inasmuch as the pattern piece exists, the pattern piece would be displayed with the second dart).
Mrak does not explicitly teach displaying through a display device.
Lastra teaches displaying through a display device, especially of duplicate pattern pieces (see Figs. 5A, 5D; Col. 8 Lines 12-14 "FIG. 5D shows the addition of the style effect 17a defined in this example by a 3D triangle folded along the given three-dimensional section 25"; Col. 7 Lines 46-47 "style effects 17a are darts modeled by triangular parts"; Col. 7 Lines 64-65 "given section 25 is therefore a dart section"; Col. 14 Lines 15-20 "the user or the patterner can display the three-dimensional base patterns on a screen. He can select a style effect in order to add it to a base pattern, analysed the overall impression, and if he is not happy with anything, he can select a new style effect which replaces the preceding one, or modify or eliminate the style effect").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mrak’s method to be displayed on a display device as taught by Lastra as obvious improvement in technology, especially as Lastra shows that improvements in technology would therefore run a similar purposed application as Mrak (displaying/modifying darts) on such an device.
Such automation of the method of Mrak as taught by Lastra would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, in reVenner 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 UPSQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Mrak further teaches wherein the generating of the second dart (see aforementioned) comprises:
changing a width of the first dart by rotating one of the duplicate pattern pieces around the pivot point (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 3 Lines 46-49 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction about pivot apex 22 to effect the closing of the old dart 14"; see Figs. 5 and 6 for changing of the width);
determining a width of the second dart based on the changed width of the first dart (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 2, 5, and 6 wherein the width of new dart 27 is based on the changed width of old dart 14); and
generating, in the pattern piece, the second dart to which the determined width of the second dart is applied (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 6 for second dart 27).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Mrak further teaches wherein the generating of the duplicate pattern pieces (see aforementioned) comprises:
dividing the pattern piece into a first portion and a second portion by a region defined by a remaining portion of the first extension line (14A) after removing a portion of the first extension line extending beyond the pivot point, and the second extension line (21) (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for dividing—see Fig. 5; Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; as for removing portion—see Fig. 5; Col. 3 Lines 40-41 "cuts out of the pattern, the old dart defined by lines 14B' -14B', as indicated in Fig. 5"; wherein there was a portion of 14A between 14B’-14B- and 14B-14B that has been removed with the cutout and was beyond the pivot point; wherein regions 23, 24 were defined by the first/second extension lines as shown in previous steps); and
generating the duplicate pattern pieces corresponding to the first portion and the second portion (Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; 23 and 24 are the duplicate pattern pieces and the first/second portions).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Mrak further teaches determining a duplicate pattern piece to be rotated among the duplicate pattern pieces (see Figs. 5 and 6 wherein 24 was determined to be rotated); and
determining a rotation direction of the determined duplicate pattern piece (see Figs. 5 and 6 wherein 24 was determined to be rotated counterclockwise; Col. 3 Lines 46-48 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction").
Regarding Claim 6, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Mrak further teaches wherein the changing of the width of the first dart (see aforementioned) comprises:
rotating the determined duplicate pattern piece around the pivot point in the determined rotation direction (Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; Col. 3 Lines 46-49 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction about pivot apex 22 to effect the closing of the old dart 14"); and
changing the width of the first dart in proportion to an angle between both line segments of the first dart that is changed by the rotating (Col. 3 Lines 44-45; wherein the angle formed by line segments of the old dart 14 is fully closed and therefore the change is in proportion).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Mrak further teaches determining a depth of the second dart corresponding to the position of the second dart (see Figs. 1-6, especially Fig. 1, wherein the depth of what would eventually be new dart 27 was determined by the depth of X which was determined by the measurements of X and Y; Col. 3 Lines 6-8 "body measurement is taken of the wearer of the dress form the center of the shoulder seam to the center of the wearer's bust as along line X in Fig. 1"; Col. 3 Lines 10-13 "another measurement is taken from the underarm seam, i.e., along line Y substantially perpendicular to the underarm seam to the center of the bust on the body of the wearer...to define with the first measurement a point of intersection 20 of the two measurements"),
wherein the generating of the second dart (see aforementioned) comprises:
generating the second dart in the pattern piece while maintaining the depth of the second dart (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 1-6, wherein the development of new second dart 27 never changed the depth).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Mrak further teaches wherein the receiving of the position of the second dart (see aforementioned) comprises:
receiving a vertex of the second dart in the at least one pattern piece on which the first dart is displayed (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Figs. 1, 6, wherein the center of the wearer’s bust at 20 is a vertex as shown in Fig. 6; Col. 3 Lines 6-8 "body measurement is taken of the wearer of the dress from the center of the shoulder seam to the center of the wearer's bust as along line X in Fig. 1").
Regarding Claim 10, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Mrak further teaches wherein the setting of the pivot point (see aforementioned) comprises:
generating the first extension line of a center line of the first dart that passes through a vertex of the first dart (see Fig. 3; Col. 3 Lines 30-31 "intersection of the centerline 14A of the old dart", wherein 14A goes through vertex);
generating the second extension line extending in a normal direction from the start point or the vertex of the second dart (see Fig. 3; Col. 3 Lines 22-24 "centerline of the new dart is located along line 21 substantially perpendicular to the shoulder seam"; wherein start point was center of shoulder seam as aforementioned in Claim 9); and
setting, as the pivot point, the intersection point between the first extension line and the second extension line (see Fig. 3; Col. 3 Lines 30-35 "intersection of the centerline 14A of the old dart with the centerline 21 of the new dart…crossing of the two centerlines thus defines a pivot point or point apex 22").
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Mrak further teaches receiving a second depth of the second dart corresponding to the position of the second dart (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 8; Col. 3 Lines 57-59 "if the new dart opening 27 appears to be too long it can be readily adjusted to desired length as indicated in Figs. 7 and 8"; as such, a new/second depth would be received corresponding to the second dart's position/length).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrak (USPN 3803717) in view of Lastra et al (USPN 8249738), herein Lastra, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Collins et al (USPN 4916634), herein Collins.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Mrak further teaches wherein the determining of the width of the second dart (see aforementioned) comprises.
Mrak does not explicitly teach calculating a difference between the width of the first dart before being changed and the changed width of the first dart; and
determining the width of the second dart based on a ratio of the difference.
Collins teaches calculating a difference between the width of the first dart before being changed and the changed width of the first dart (Col. 41 Lines 60-64 "graded data slot 558 may contain information, referred to here as 'to-close' information, about how to close a particular dart or pleat for each of a project's known sizes. To-close information may be calculated…for darts"; see Fig. 32A; Col. 42 Lines 10-11 "When closing a dart, the current system either applies a translation or it applies a rotation"; Col. 42 Lines 18-23 "when the two line segments of a dart are not parallel, the current system establishes a pivot point and a rotation angle. A way in which a pivot point and rotation angle may be computed is illustrated in Fig. 32A. Point 803 is the near dart end and point 804 is the far dart end. Lines 805 and 807 are the two line segments of a dart line"; wherein in order to calculate a pivot point, a rotation angle must also be calculated/known which is then the a difference between the width before and after; Col. 42 Lines 28-29 "rotation angle, call it r, is defined by (direction 806-direction 808)"; see Fig. 32B; Col. 42 Lines 46-47 "pivot point 813 coincides with the dart point").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mrak’s second dart width determination with the calculation of Collins as Collins teaches this is as known calculation when desiring to close a dart properly (Col. 42 Lines 10-11).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Mrak teaches determining the width of the second dart based on a ratio of the difference (wherein the width of the second dart of Mrak is relative to the difference of the first dart width calculated by Collins, wherein such a difference represents some ratio).
SECOND REJECTION: As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 12-14, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrak (USPN 3803717) in view of Lastra et al (USPN 8249738), herein Lastra, and Grinspun et al (US Publication 2014/0114620), herein Grinspun.
Regarding Claim 12, Mrak teaches instructions (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- as such, see title "method of transferring and directing the darts in a dress pattern"; see also Figs. 1-6; inasmuch as the pattern piece exists, the pattern piece would be displayed with the second dart), to:
receive a position of a second dart to be generated in association with a first dart included in the at least one pattern piece that forms a garment (Col. 3 Lines 19-24 "location of the new dart is positioned on the pattern at a location which best suits and/or complements the wearer's figure or as required by an individual design. In Fig. 2, the centerline of the new dart is located along line 21 substantially perpendicular to the shoulder seam", wherein first dart is Col. 3 Line 27 "old dart 14"; wherein receiving a position of second dart is met with the existence of centerline 21);
set a pivot point by an intersection point between a first extension line (14A) extending from the first dart and a second extension line (21) extending from a point where the second dart is to be generated (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 3; Col. 3 Lines 30-35 "intersection of the centerline 14A of the old dart with the centerline 21 of the new dart…crossing of the two centerlines thus defines a pivot point or point apex 22"),
generate a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces (23, 24) that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; wherein 23 and 24 are duplicates inasmuch as these new portions are duplicates of regions in the original pattern piece);
generate the second dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart that is changed by rotating at least a portion of the pattern piece around the pivot point (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; Col. 3 Lines 46-49 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction about pivot apex 22 to effect the closing of the old dart 14"; Col. 3 Lines 54-56 "in doing so the new dart 27 is now open or transferred"; see Figs. 5, 6 for changing of the first dart width therefore new dart 27 width is generated based on the closing of the first dart width from rotating); and
display the pattern piece including the generated second dart (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Figs. 1-6; inasmuch as the pattern piece exists, the pattern piece would be displayed with the second dart).
Mrak does not explicitly teach display through a display device.
Lastra teaches display through a display device, especially of duplicate pattern pieces (see Figs. 5A, 5D; Col. 8 Lines 12-14 "FIG. 5D shows the addition of the style effect 17a defined in this example by a 3D triangle folded along the given three-dimensional section 25"; Col. 7 Lines 46-47 "style effects 17a are darts modeled by triangular parts"; Col. 7 Lines 64-65 "given section 25 is therefore a dart section"; Col. 14 Lines 15-20 "the user or the patterner can display the three-dimensional base patterns on a screen. He can select a style effect in order to add it to a base pattern, analysed the overall impression, and if he is not happy with anything, he can select a new style effect which replaces the preceding one, or modify or eliminate the style effect").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mrak’s method to be displayed on a display device as taught by Lastra as obvious improvement in technology, especially as Lastra shows that improvements in technology would therefore run a similar purposed application as Mrak (displaying/modifying darts) on such an device.
Such automation of the method of Mrak as taught by Lastra would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, in reVenner 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 UPSQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Mrak does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the instructions.
Grinspun teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the instructions (see Fig. 6; [0052] "dart 610"; [0052] "dart tool that allows the user to add and/or modify darts"; [0052] "dart tool creates a line that intersects a boundary, the application can create a triangular dart"; see Figs. 18, 19; [0092] "server 1810 can be any suitable server for providing access to the application, such as a processor, a computer"; [0093] "each of the client 1802 and server 1810 can...include...processor...display controllers"; [0094] "any suitable computer readable media can be used for storing instructions for performing the processes described herein"; [0094] "computer readable media can be...non-transitory”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mrak’s instructions to be performed with the apparatus of Grinspun as Grinspun shows that improvements in technology would therefore run a similar purposed application as Mrak (displaying/modifying darts) on such an apparatus.
Such automation of the instructions of Mrak as taught by Grinspun would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, in reVenner 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 UPSQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding Claim 13, Mrak teaches instructions (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- as such, see title "method of transferring and directing the darts in a dress pattern"; see also Figs. 1-6; inasmuch as the pattern piece exists, the pattern piece would be displayed with the second dart), to:
receive a position of a second dart to be generated in association with a first dart included in the at least one pattern piece that forms a garment (Col. 3 Lines 19-24 "location of the new dart is positioned on the pattern at a location which best suits and/or complements the wearer's figure or as required by an individual design. In Fig. 2, the centerline of the new dart is located along line 21 substantially perpendicular to the shoulder seam", wherein first dart is Col. 3 Line 27 "old dart 14"; wherein receiving a position of second dart is met with the existence of centerline 21);
set a pivot point by an intersection point between a first extension line (14A) extending from the first dart and a second extension line (21) extending from a point from which the second dart is to be generated (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 3; Col. 3 Lines 30-35 "intersection of the centerline 14A of the old dart with the centerline 21 of the new dart…crossing of the two centerlines thus defines a pivot point or point apex 22"),
generate a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces (23, 24) that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; wherein 23 and 24 are duplicates inasmuch as these new portions are duplicates of regions in the original pattern piece);
and generate the second dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart that is changed by rotating at least a portion of the pattern piece around the pivot point (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; Col. 3 Lines 46-49 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction about pivot apex 22 to effect the closing of the old dart 14"; Col. 3 Lines 54-56 "in doing so the new dart 27 is now open or transferred"; see Figs. 5, 6 for changing of the first dart width therefore new dart 27 width is generated based on the closing of the first dart width from rotating); and
display the pattern piece including the second dart (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Figs. 1-6; inasmuch as the pattern piece exists, the pattern piece would be displayed with the second dart).
Mrak does not explicitly teach an apparatus comprising:
a user interface for receiving the position,
a processor for setting a pivot point,
and an output device for displaying.
Grinspun teaches an apparatus (see Figs. 6, 18, 19; user computer 1802; see Fig. 6; [0052] "dart 610"; [0052] "dart tool that allows the user to add and/or modify darts"; [0052] "dart tool creates a line that intersects a boundary, the application can create a triangular dart"; see Figs. 18, 19; [0092] "server 1810 can be any suitable server for providing access to the application, such as a processor, a computer"; [0093] "each of the client 1802 and server 1810 can...include...processor...display controllers"; [0094] "any suitable computer readable media can be used for storing instructions for performing the processes described herein"; [0094] "computer readable media can be...non-transitory") comprising:
a user interface (see Fig. 19; [0099] "user computer 1802 may be a graphical user interface ("GUI") which allows a user to interact with the application"; [0092] "graphical user interfaces displayed by the application…can be distributed…to user computer 1802"),
a processor ([0092] "server 1810 can be any suitable server for providing access to the application, such as a processor),
an output device ([0093] "each of the client 1802 and server 1810 can...include...processor...display controllers"; wherein output device is display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mrak’s method to be performed with the apparatus of Grinspun as Grinspun shows that improvements in technology would therefore run a similar purposed application as Mrak (displaying/modifying darts) on such an apparatus.
Such automation of the method of Mrak as taught by Grinspun would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, in reVenner 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 UPSQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Mrak teaches:
the user interface is for receiving the position (Grinspun’s user interface has the application/method and the application/method of Mrak teaches receiving),
the processor setting a pivot point (Grinspun’s processor has the application/method and the application/method of Mrak teaches setting),
the output device displaying (Grinspun’s output device displays the application/method and the application/method of Mrak teaches such displaying), and therefore
the apparatus (inasmuch as the aforementioned structures are met with their functionalities).
Nevertheless, Lastra also teaches an output device for displaying, especially of duplicate pattern pieces (see Figs. 5A, 5D; Col. 8 Lines 12-14 "FIG. 5D shows the addition of the style effect 17a defined in this example by a 3D triangle folded along the given three-dimensional section 25"; Col. 7 Lines 46-47 "style effects 17a are darts modeled by triangular parts"; Col. 7 Lines 64-65 "given section 25 is therefore a dart section"; Col. 14 Lines 15-20 "the user or the patterner can display the three-dimensional base patterns on a screen. He can select a style effect in order to add it to a base pattern, analysed the overall impression, and if he is not happy with anything, he can select a new style effect which replaces the preceding one, or modify or eliminate the style effect").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mrak’s method to be displayed on a display device as taught by Lastra as obvious improvement in technology, especially as Lastra shows that improvements in technology would therefore run a similar purposed application as Mrak (displaying/modifying darts) on such an device.
Such automation of the method of Mrak as taught by Lastra would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, in reVenner 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 UPSQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
Modified Mrak further teaches wherein the processor (by Grinspun) is configured to
change a width of the first dart by rotating one of the duplicate pattern pieces around the pivot point (Mrak Col. 3 Lines 46-49 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction about pivot apex 22 to effect the closing of the old dart 14"; see Figs. 5 and 6 for changing of the width);
determine a width of the second dart based on the changed width of the first dart (see Mrak Figs. 2, 5, and 6 wherein the width of new dart 27 is based on the changed width of old dart 14); and
generate, in the pattern piece, the second dart to which the determined width of the second dart is applied (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Mrak Fig. 6 for second dart 27).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Modified Mrak teaches wherein the processor (provided by Grinspun) is configured to:
divide the pattern piece into a first portion and a second portion by a region defined by a remaining portion of the first extension line (14A) after removing a portion extending beyond the pivot point, and the second extension line (21) (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for dividing—see Fig. 5; Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; as for removing portion—see Fig. 5; Col. 3 Lines 40-41 "cuts out of the pattern, the old dart defined by lines 14B' -14B', as indicated in Fig. 5"; wherein there was a portion of 14A between 14B’-14B- and 14B-14B that has been removed with the cutout and was beyond the pivot point; wherein regions 23, 24 were defined by the first/second extension lines as shown in previous steps); and
generate the duplicate pattern pieces corresponding to the first portion and the second portion (Mrak Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; 23 and 24 are the duplicate pattern pieces and the first/second portions).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Modified Mrak teaches wherein the processor (provided by Grinspun) is configured to:
determine a duplicate pattern piece to be rotated among the duplicate pattern pieces (see Mrak Figs. 5 and 6 wherein 24 was determined to be rotated); and
determine a rotation direction of the determined duplicate pattern piece (see Mrak Figs. 5 and 6 wherein 24 was determined to be rotated counterclockwise; Col. 3 Lines 46-48 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction").
Regarding Claim 18, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Modified Mrak teaches wherein the processor (provided by Grinspun) is configured to:
rotate the determined duplicate pattern piece around the pivot point in the determined rotation direction (Mrak Col. 3 Lines 44-45 "pattern of the garment 12 …into two pieces 23 and 24"; Col. 3 Lines 46-49 "severed portion 24 of the pattern is rotated…in a counterclockwise direction about pivot apex 22 to effect the closing of the old dart 14"); and
change the width of the first dart in proportion to an angle between both line segments of the first dart that is changed by the rotating (Mrak Col. 3 Lines 44-45; wherein the angle formed by line segments of the old dart 14 is fully closed and therefore the change is in proportion).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
Modified Mrak teaches wherein the processor (provided by Grinspun) is configured to:
determine a depth of the second dart corresponding to the position of the second dart (see Mrak Figs. 1-6, especially Fig. 1, wherein the depth of what would eventually be new dart 27 was determined by the depth of X which was determined by the measurements of X and Y; Col. 3 Lines 6-8 "body measurement is taken of the wearer of the dress form the center of the shoulder seam to the center of the wearer's bust as along line X in Fig. 1"; Col. 3 Lines 10-13 "another measurement is taken from the underarm seam, i.e., along line Y substantially perpendicular to the underarm seam to the center of the bust on the body of the wearer...to define with the first measurement a point of intersection 20 of the two measurements"); and
generate the second dart in the pattern piece while maintaining the determined depth of the second dart (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Mrak Figs. 1-6, wherein the development of new second dart 27 never changed the depth).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrak (USPN 3803717) in view of Lastra et al (USPN 8249738), herein Lastra, and Grinspun et al (US Publication 2014/0114620), herein Grinspun, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Collins et al (USPN 4916634), herein Collins.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Mrak teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Modified Mrak teaches wherein the processor (provided by Grinspun) is configured to.
Mrak does not explicitly teach calculate a difference between the width of the first dart before being changed and the changed width of the first dart; and
determine the width of the second dart based on a ratio of the difference.
Collins teaches calculate a difference between the width of the first dart before being changed and the changed width of the first dart (Col. 41 Lines 60-64 "graded data slot 558 may contain information, referred to here as 'to-close' information, about how to close a particular dart or pleat for each of a project's known sizes. To-close information may be calculated…for darts"; see Fig. 32A; Col. 42 Lines 10-11 "When closing a dart, the current system either applies a translation or it applies a rotation"; Col. 42 Lines 18-23 "when the two line segments of a dart are not parallel, the current system establishes a pivot point and a rotation angle. A way in which a pivot point and rotation angle may be computed is illustrated in Fig. 32A. Point 803 is the near dart end and point 804 is the far dart end. Lines 805 and 807 are the two line segments of a dart line"; wherein in order to calculate a pivot point, a rotation angle must also be calculated/known which is then the a difference between the width before and after; Col. 42 Lines 28-29 "rotation angle, call it r, is defined by (direction 806-direction 808)"; see Fig. 32B; Col. 42 Lines 46-47 "pivot point 813 coincides with the dart point").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mrak’s second dart width determination with the calculation of Collins as Collins teaches this is as known calculation when desiring to close a dart properly (Col. 42 Lines 10-11).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Mrak teaches to determine the width of the second dart based on a ratio of the difference (wherein the width of the second dart of Mrak is relative to the difference of the first dart width calculated by Collins, wherein such a difference represents some ratio).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Mrak teaches that the processor performs these operations (these operations are modifying Mrak’s application and Mrak’s application runs on the processor provided by Grinspun).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, 16-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-8, 10-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12201174, herein ‘174.
Instant Application 18/975,566
USPN 12201174
1. A method of displaying at least one dart on at least one pattern piece, comprising:
Claim 1 "A method of displaying a pattern piece…displaying the pattern piece including the generated second dart"
receiving a of a second dart to be generated in association with a first dart included in the at least one pattern piece that forms a garment;
Claim 1 "receiving a of a second dart…first dart included in the pattern piece that forms a garment…generating the second dart in the pattern based based on a width of the first dart"
setting a pivot point by an intersection point between a first extension line extending from the first dart and a second extension line extending from a point where the second dart is to be generated;
Claim 1 "setting an intersection point between a first extension line extending from the first dart and a second extension line extending from a center point of the second dart as a pivot point
generating a plurality of duplicate pattern piees that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point;
Claim 1 "generating a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point"
generating the second dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart that is changed by rotating at least a portion of the pattern piece around the pivot point; and
Claim 1 "changing a width of the first dart by rotating one of the duplicate pattern pieces around the pivot point; determining a width of the second dart based on the changed width of the first dart; and generating, in the pattern piece, the second dart to which the determined width of the second dart is applied"
displaying, through a display device, the pattern piece including the generated second dart
displaying the pattern piece including the generated second dart
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the second dart comprises:
Claim 1
changing a width of the first dart by rotating one of the duplicate pattern pieces around the pivot point;
Claim 1
determining a width of the second dart based on the changed width of the first dart; and
Claim 1
generating, in the pattern piece, the second dart to which the determined width of the second dart is applied
Claim 1
4. The method of Claim 2, wherein the generating of the duplicate pattern pieces comprises:
Claim 2
dividing the pattern piece into a first portion and a second portion defined by a remaining portion of the first extension line after removing a portion of the first extension line extending beyond the pivot point, and the second extension line; and
Claim 2 "dividing the pattern piece into a first portion and a second portion defined by an extension line in which a portion extending beyond the pivot point of the first extension line is removed and by the second extension line"
generating the duplicate pattern pieces corresponding to the first portion and the second portion
Claim 2
5. The method of Claim 2, further comprising at least one of:
Claim 3
determining a duplicate pattern piece to be rotated among the duplicate pattern pieces; and
Claim 3
determining a rotation direction of the determined duplicate pattern piece
Claim 3
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the changing of the width of the first dart comprises:
Claim 4
rotating the determined duplicate pattern piece around the pivot point in the determined rotation direction; and
Claim 4
changing the width of the first dart in proportion to an angle between both line segments of the first dart that is changed by the rotating
Claim 4
7. The method of claim 5, wherein the determining of the width of the second dart comprises:
Claim 5
calculating a difference between the width of the first dart before being changed and the changed width of the first dart; and
Claim 5
determining the width of the second dart based on a ratio of the difference
Claim 5
8. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: determining a depth of the second dart corresponding to the of the second dart,
Claim 6
wherein the generating of the second dart comprises:
Claim 6
generating the second dart in the pattern piece while maintaining the depth of the second dart
Claim 6
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the receiving of the of the second dart comprises:
Claim 7
receiving a vertex of the second dart in the at least one pattern piece on which the first dart is displayed
Claim 7 "receiving a start point of the second art on an outer line of the pattern piece on which the first dart is displayed"
10. The method of Claim 9, wherein the setting of the pivot point comprises:
Claim 8
generating the first extension line of a center line of the first dart that passes through a vertex of the first dart;
Claim 8
generating the second extension line extending in a normal direction from a start point or the vertex of the second dart; and
Claim 8
setting, as the pivot point, the intersection point between the first extension line and the second extension line
Claim 1 "setting an intersection point between a first extension line...and a second extension line…as a pivot point"
11. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second depth of the second dart corresponding to the of the second dart
Claim 7
12. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (see essentially Claim 1)
Claim 10
13. An apparatus comprising:
Claim 11
a user interface (UI) configured to receive a position of a second dart to be generated in association with a first dart included in at least one pattern piece that forms a garment;
Claim 11in association --> "receive a position of a second dart…first dart included in the pattern piece that forms a garment…generate the econd dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart"
a processor configured to set a pivot point by an intersection point between a first extension line extending from the first dart and a second extension line extending from a point where the second dart is to be generated;
Claim 11 "processor configured to set an intersection point between a first extension line extending from the first dart and a second extension line extending from a center point of the second dart as a pivot point"
generating a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point;
Claim 11 "generate a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point"
generating the second dart in the pattern piece based on a width of the first dart that is changed by rotating at least a portion of the pattern piece around the pivot point; and
Claim 11 "change a width of the first dart by rotating one of the duplicate pattern pieces around the pivot point; determine a width of the second dart based on the changed width of the first dart; and generate the second dart in the pattern piece to which the determined width of the second dart is applied"
an output device configured to display a pattern piece including the second dart
Claim 11 "an output device configured to display the pattern piece including the second dart"
14. The apparatus of Claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to:
Claim 11
generate a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece based on the pivot point;
Claim 11
change a width of the first dart by rotating one of the duplicate pattern pieces around the pivot point;
Claim 11
determine a width of the second dart based on the changed width of the first dart; and
Claim 11
generate, in the pattern piece, the second dart to which the determined width of the second dart is applied
Claim 11
16. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to:
Claim 12
divide the pattern piece into a first portion and a second portion by a region defined by a remaining portion of the first extension line after removing a portion extending beyond the pivot point, and the second extension line; and
Claim 12 "divide the pattern piece into a first portion and a second portion defined by the first extension line, in which a portion extending beyond the pivot point of the first extension line is removed, and by the second extension line"
generate the duplicate pattern pieces corresponding to the first portion and the second portion
Claim 12
17. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to:
Claim 13
determine a duplicate pattern piece to be rotated among the duplicate pattern pieces; and
Claim 13
determine a rotation direction of the determined duplicate pattern piece
Claim 13
18. The apparatus of Claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to:
Claim 14
rotate the determined duplicate pattern piece around the pivot point in the determined rotation direction; and
Claim 14
change the width of the first dart in proportion to an angle between both line segments of the first dart that is changed by the rotating
Claim 14
19. The apparatus of Claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to:
Claim 15
calculate a difference between the width of the first dart before being changed and the changed width of the first dart; and
Claim 15
determine the width of the second dart based on a ratio of the difference
Claim 15
20. The apparatus of Claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to:
Claim 16
determine a depth of the second dart corresponding to the of the second dart; and
Claim 16
generate the second dart in the pattern piece while maintaining the determined depth of the second dart
Claim 16
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
U.S.C. 101 rejection
Pertaining to remarks on page 14 that the claims are not mental processes because they cannot be performed in the human mind—examiner respectfully disagrees. Remarks indicate that there are automatic computation and vertex tracking, but none of this has been claimed. Even if so, all the computationally dividing, connecting vertices, rotating pieces—this can all be drawn by pen and paper. Remarks also indicate the proportional width calculation—but as rejected in the 101 rejection, calculation is a mathematical process and further performable in the human mind, with pen and paper. Especially in light of the current prior art of record in the rejection(s) —Mrak clearly shows an analog process performable as a mental process, with pen and paper.
Pertaining to remarks on page 15 that the claim is not a mental process because it involves a geometric rotation algorithm—examiner respectfully disagrees. No such algorithm has been claimed. Even if the algorithm was claimed, attention is directed to extrinsic evidence July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47 Claim 2, wherein the mere use of an algorithm does not obviate a 101 rejection.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 15-16 that there is an improvement in the functioning of a computer and therefore limitations are directed to significantly more—examiner respectfully disagrees. Especially in light of the current prior art of record in the rejection(s) —Mrak clearly shows an analog process performable as a mental process, with pen and paper, which has been merely been computerized, in light of the other references in the rejection.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 that the amendment to duplicating pattern pieces is significantly more—examiner respectfully disagrees. This can be performed by drawing multiple pattern pieces.
Thus far, the limitations can be merely mentally gathering data, such as obtaining, changing, generating, etc. As a suggestion, substantive additional elements whose functions are clearly linked together may help to move the case forward from U.S.C. 101 rejections. For example, the parent application had allowable subject matter involved functions of a mouse. Mere detecting, determining, generating are all mental processes, but to move/rotate a mouse in order to rotate a duplicate pattern piece may be beyond a mental process, and then further displaying the generated dart from the movement/rotation of the mouse would be additional elements for consideration.
U.S.C. 102/103 rejection(s)
Pertaining to remarks on page 18 that Mrak does not teach duplicates—examiner respectfully disagrees. Though remarks argue that duplicates are generated copies, the claims currently do not require such a narrow interpretation. The interpretation of the term duplicates under broadest reasonable interpretation was explained on page 14 of the office action 11/5/25, which has not been addressed in the remarks. Nevertheless, for compact prosecution, art is provided showing that it is known in the art to update screens with duplicate patterns when changes are made to a pattern, let alone for patterns with a dart.
Despite remarks on page 19 that Grinspun does not address the duplicates, examiner respectfully disagrees, and directs attention to Grinspun [0011]. Nevertheless, for compact prosecution, Lastra is utilized for further details.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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 on 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights