DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 8/25/26 in which claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-22 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/25/26 has been entered.
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 § 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 13 (and Claims 1 and 12 similarly) recites:
An apparatus comprising:
a user interface (UI) configured to receive a position of a second dart to be generated in association with a first dart included in a pattern piece that forms a garment (additional element);
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 from which the second dart is to be generated (additional element),
generate a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces that divide at least a portion of the pattern piece modeled with a mesh including a plurality of polygons, based on the pivot point, by at least connecting vertices of the mesh included in an outer line of the at least a portion of the pattern piece to the pivot point, each vertex of the duplicate pattern pieces being matched to a corresponding vertex of the mesh of the pattern piece (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper),
change a width of the first dart by rotating one of the duplicate pattern pieces around the pivot point in response to a movement of a cursor of a pointing device (additional element) positioned at the one of the duplicate pattern pieces (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper),
determine a width of the second dart based on a distance by which a matched vertex of the rotated one of the duplicate pattern pieces is moved by the rotating around the pivot point, the matched vertex corresponding to the position of the second dart (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper),
detect a position of the cursor that is changed based on the rotated one of the duplicate pattern pieces (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper),
calculate a rotation angle between the changed position of the cursor and the pivot point (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper),
determine a length of the second dart based on the rotation angle (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper), and
generate, in the pattern piece, the second dart having the determined width of the second dart (evaluation or judgment, which is a mental process performable with pen and paper); and
an output device configured to display the pattern piece including the first dart having the changed width and the second dart, in response to the movement of the cursor (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 13, as outlined above, relates to a mental process for 1) generating a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces, 2) changing and determining widths, 3) detecting a position, 4) calculating a rotation angle, 5) determining a length, and 6) generating the second dart. Such steps 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) a user interface, 2) a processor, 3) a pointing device, and 4) an output device. However, these are computer-related components recited at a high level of generality and do not meaningfully limit the claim. In other words, these additional elements are not of a particular machine that would be indicative of integration into a practical application, as the elements are all generic computer components, merely digitizing abstract ideas. 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 13, as outlined above, does not contain any “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The additional elements of a user interface, the processor, the pointing device, and the output device are, again, not of a particular machine that would amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. These elements are all disclosed as well-known understood routine and conventional based on their disclosure in the specification satisfying 35 U.S.C. §112(a) written description. See, for example, Fig. 9. See also, [00104] for the user interface, [00111], [00115] for the processor, [0051] for the pointing device, and [00110] for the output device. Especially as no details have been disclosed and yet the elements satisfy written description, these are conventional hardware for the abstract ideas.
Very similarly for Claims 1 and 12: “receiving a position” and “setting a pivot point” are mental processes, and “displaying” is insignificant extra-solution activity to the well-known understood routine and conventional “display device” for reasons similarly indicated above.
Dependent claims are also rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims without resolving the 101 issues.
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, 16-22, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-22 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.
Pertaining to remarks on page 12 for the abstract—examiner notes that though the original abstract of 12/10/24 is of 110 words, the replacement abstract of 4/3/26 is 157 words and needs correction.
Pertaining to remarks on page 13 for the 101 rejection, that the amended claims do not recite a result at a high level of generality as they recite a specific technique—examiner respectfully disagrees. The techniques are abstract ideas, and therefore are not applicable to arguments pertaining to levels of generality, as the level of generality is evaluated for additional elements, not for abstract ideas. As aforementioned in the rejection herein, the additional elements (user interface, processor, pointing device/mouse, and output device) are all at a high level of generality as they are all generic computer components.
Pertaining to remarks on page 13 that the claims provide an improvement to computer-implemented pattern-design reflecting a practical application and are not a mental process—examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional elements are evaluated for practical application/improvements, while abstract ideas are evaluated for mental process. In other words, practical application and mental process are not related evaluations as argued. The techniques are abstract ideas based on mental process, and therefore mental process is not applicable to arguments pertaining to practical application. As aforementioned, the additional elements are all generic components that are well known, understood, routine, and conventional and therefore are not providing an improvement to computers.
For further clarification—Step 2A Prong One are for abstract ideas; Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B are for additional elements. The evaluations for abstract ideas do not apply to the additional elements, and vice versa. Applicant is reminded that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016). Here, the limitations “generate a plurality of duplicate pattern pieces…change a width…determine a width…detect a position…calculate a rotation angle…determine a length…generate…the second dart” are abstract ideas and not additional elements. The additional elements of claim 13 (and as applicable to Claims 1 and 12) are merely generically recited computer elements used as tools for executing the abstract ideas or insignificant extra-solution activity.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), wherein “[i]t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Williamson et al (USPN 4534813), Rawlings (GB 955868), Sakaguchi et al (JPH 07210591), Sakaguchi (JPH 08246219), Gibson (USPN 4205446) directed to utilizing a mesh of polygons with a dart pattern piece.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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