DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims the benefit of application no. 63/615,728 filed 12/28/2023.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “As disclosed herein…is provided,” (lines 1-2) can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a “method” for “determining a garment mesh for an avatar comprising: receiving, providing and determining” steps of which are generic “processing” steps that can solely performed in one’s mind and are therefore simply mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not provide any sort of device, hardware, processor, etc. that actually performs any of steps of the 35 USC 101 rejection and therefore does not provide any sort of practical application since it can be considered solely performed in one’s mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims lack any sort of output, rendering, storage, etc. that at least utilizes or takes/receives the result of the claimed processing steps and performs some sort of action thereupon. Note, claim 10 is NOT included in this rejection since it actually performs a “rendering” of the “garment mesh” thus reciting significantly more than just any sort of abstract idea. Further note, although the preamble does include the term “computer-implemented,” the term solely occurs within the preamble without any sort of explicit or implicit tie to any of the steps in the body of the claim, thus the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. In other words, the Examiner has considered, when determining subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim (claim 1) as a whole and determined that the lack of any implicit or explicit “tie” to such preamble-only-recited “computer” does not provide any practical application to the limitations of the body of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to claims 11 and 20,the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept of receiving a pose parameter of a pose of an avatar in an extended reality environment, receiving a garment parameter of a garment of the avatar in the extended reality environment, using a model to determine a garment mesh associated with a pose of the avatar for each garment type of a plurality of garment types using the pose and garment parameters.
In reference to claims 12-19, these claims depend upon allowable claim 11 and are therefore also deemed allowable.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chentanez et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0051094)
Chentanez et al. discloses using one or more neural networks to construct triangle meshes which define cloth.
Shysheya et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0358197)
Shysheya et al. discloses a system and method for synthesizing 2D images of a person producing full body renderings from 3D coordinates of body joints.
DeTemmerman et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0163103)
DeTemmerman et al. discloses a computer implemented method for designing an avatar with at least one garment.
"Fully Convolutional Graph Neural Networks for Parametric Virtual Try-On," Vidaurre et al. 2020.2009.04592. ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation, 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04592.
Vidaurre et al. discloses a learning-based approach for virtual try-on applications based on a fully convolutional graph neural network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
6/30/26
Prosecution Insights