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 3/18/26 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 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 12/29/25.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 10 before “decreasing” add –the—for clear antecedent basis with Claim 1 Line 7
Claim 1 Line 11 before “the spatial distance” add –of—
Claim 1 Line 11 before “respective ones” add –the—for clear antecedent basis with Claim 1 Line 8
Claim 11 Line 12 delete “decreasing or increasing” and substitute –the decrease or increase of—for clear antecedent basis with Claim 11 Line 9
Claim 11 Line 13 before “respective ones” add –the—for clear antecedent basis with Claim 11 Line 10
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “produces the 2D knitting map in a form that is directly executable by the computer-controlled knitting machine” in Claim 1 Lines 13-14 is considered new matter. There is no specification antecedent basis for this limitation. On the contrary, [0040] indicates that a directly executable form is that of g-code, which is not the 2D knitting map.
The term “without requiring further topological modification of the 2D knitting map” in Claim 1 Lines 14-15 is considered new matter. There is no specification antecedent basis for this negative limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(i) “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.”
Claim 11 Lines 15-16 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 13-14.
Claim 11 Lines 16-17 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 14-15.
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) 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjusted spatial distance" in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the adjusted spatial distance” in Claim 1 Line 12 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the term relates to “decreasing or increasing the spatial distance.” For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “the decreased or increased spatial distance.”
The term “2D knitting map in a form that is directly executable by the computer-controlled knitting machine without requiring further topological modification of the 2D knitting map” in Claim 1 Lines 13-15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially without specification antecedent basis, the metes and bounds of the term “directly” is not understood. Is the claim defining “directly” as “without requiring further modification”, or an incorrectly claimed version of [0040]? For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by any instructions in the knitting map being for a knitting machine, and that there is a form of the knitting map that does not require further topological modification.
Claim 11 Line 14 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Line 12.
Claim 11 Lines 15-17 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 13-15.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al (US Publication 2019/0368085), herein Morgan, in view of Ziegler et al (US Publication 2023/0248099), herein Ziegler.
Regarding Claim 1, Morgan teaches a computer-implemented method (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; see Fig. 5B; [0129] "aspects of this technology also may be used for…articles of apparel. Apparel based aspects of this technology may include one or more of: methods of designing and/or forming garments, methods of visually depicting garment designs and/or entering design changes, systems for performing the methods, and/or computer readable media, including computer-executable instructions stored thereon, for performing the methods and/or operating the system"), comprising:
transforming a model defined in a space into a two-dimensional (2D) knitting map that specifies respective locations of stitches for a knitted article ([0131] "Fig. 5B shows an initial display of body map data on a computer display device"; [0130] "body map data may come from any suitable source such as from an optical scan of a specific wearer's body...from a thermal scan"; for 2D knitting map -- [0132] "based on the body map data 550…garment design input data 502 for a garment design may be generated...this garment design input data 502 may include a data set with instructions for knitting a computer controlled knitting machine to produce the desired garment design 500"; for knitting map with location of stitches --> [0132] "the garment design input data 502 created ...may include data representing different knit structural units and/or different knitting actions at various locations in the garment structure"; see Fig. 7 for example of 502 knitting map);
groups of the stitches forming courses and wales of the knitted article (see Fig. 7 for “course no.” of stitch (and therefore wale); [0007] "the term 'knit structural unit'…means a combination of two or more stitches and/or needle actions in a course direction and/or a wale direction"; [0154] "each column 702 (vertical in Fig. 7) of the bitmap 700 represents a specific needle of a knitting machine 506...and/or a wale of the garment design or garment structure to be knitted, and each row 704 (horizontal in Fig. 7) of the bitmap 700 represents a specific course of the garment design or garment structure to be knitted"),
the 2D knitting map contain apexes which terminate an end of respective pairs of the courses (see Fig. 7 for detailed 2-D knitting map; wherein there are respective pairs of courses that have ends, and therefore apexes; see also 502 in Fig. 5B for apexes/ends of 2-D knitting map),
wherein all of the courses of the 2D knitting map extend along lines that are arranged parallel to one another (see Fig. 7 for parallel);
for a portion of the 2D knitting map, decreasing or increasing a spatial distance between respective ones of the apexes within the portion of the 2D knitting map (see 512 in Fig. 5B, wherein a spatial distance at least increased, if not decreased, between some of the knit structural units and therefore some of the ends; for decrease/increase spatial distance -- [0134] "garment design input data 502…operates the knitting machine 506 to create (knit) a first garment 508 based on the garment design input data 502"; for based on a user-provided input --> [0135] "because of various factors...sometimes ...first garment 508....does not turn out as expected...may not perform in the manner desired/anticipated...may not fit correctly...any of these types of issues...with the first garment 508 in this process may cause the garment designer to want to alter the garment design"; [0136] "the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500...and thereby create a revised garment 510...the revised garment 510 may include changes...to at least one of: a size of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a position of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a size of the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a position of the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the first knit structural unit with respect to the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the first knit structural unit with respect to another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the second knit structural unit with respect to another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; eliminating at least one of the first knit structural unit or the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; adding one or more additional knit structural units (which may be the same as or different from either or both of the first and/or second knit structural units) in the revised garment design 510; changing a material in one or more portions of the revised garment design 510 (and optionally changing a material of some or all of the first knit structural unit and/or the second knit structural unit); changing a distance between two occurrences of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; changing a number of knit stitch actions between two occurrences of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; changing a distance between the first knit structural unit and another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; and/or changing a number of knit stitch actions between the first knit structural unit and another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510"; for within 2D knitting map -- [0138] "additionally or alternatively, rather than making the changes to the garment design 510 in the graphic design software, a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised design input data 512"),
wherein an amount of the spatial distance decreased or increased between the respective ones the apexes of the portion of the 2D knitting map is based on a user-provided input (see Fig. 5B, wherein A (changing 508 to 514) is based on user-input after shirt requires changes; [0134] "garment design input data 502…operates the knitting machine 506 to create (knit) a first garment 508 based on the garment design input data 502"; based on a user-provided input -- [0135] "because of various factors...sometimes ...first garment 508....does not turn out as expected...may not perform in the manner desired/anticipated...may not fit correctly...any of these types of issues...with the first garment 508 in this process may cause the garment designer to want to alter the garment design"; [0136] "the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500...and thereby create a revised garment 510"),
and decreasing or increasing the spatial distance between respective ones of the apexes is performed subject to knitting rules defined by a computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine (for a computer flatbed knit machine -- [0140] "using the revised knitting machine instruction data set, at least one knitting machine 506 knits a second garment 514"; [0154] 'knitting machine 506 (e.g.,...a flat knitting machine"), wherein the instruction data set is computer controlled (see Fig. 1); or, see also [0139] "data conversion, when needed, may take place at the design computer 102...at a computer included with or operating the knitting machine 506, at another computer", which means the output instructions are also from a computer/computer-controlled; knitting rules-- see Fig. 7 for knitting rules of whether actions are to tuck or knit or transfer or miss, which are limited by the flatbed knitting machine as opposed to, for example, over/under actions in a loom; as such, the spatial distance formed by these actions is performed subject to these rules/actions)
such that the adjusted spatial distance between the apexes produces the 2D knitting map in a form that is directly executable by the computer-controlled knitting machine (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 7 for the form executable by knitting machine)
without requiring further topological modification of the 2D knitting map (Fig. 5B teaches a final product form that has a corresponding Fig. 7; wherein the actions knit/tuck/transfer/miss forms a topology and therefore would be topological modifications);
converting the 2D knitting map to knitting instructions for the computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine ([0139] "revised garment design input data 512 may be converted, if necessary, to a knitting machine instruction data set (S510, Fig. 5A)"; for the computer flatbed knit machine -- [0140] "using the revised knitting machine instruction data set, at least one knitting machine 506 knits a second garment 514"; [0154] 'knitting machine 506 (e.g.,...a flat knitting machine"), wherein the instruction data set is computer controlled (see Fig. 1); or, see also [0139] "data conversion, when needed, may take place at the design computer 102...at a computer included with or operating the knitting machine 506, at another computer", which means the output instructions are also from a computer/computer-controlled); and
transmitting said knitting instructions to said computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine so as to produce the knitted article in accordance with the knitting instructions (for transmitting -- see Fig. 5B after 506I ([0139] "input data received at input device 506I…may include…the revised garment design input data 512 before it is converted to knitting machine instruction data"; for produced knitted article see Fig. 5B for 514 -- [0140] "using the revised knitting machine instruction data set, at least one knitting machine 506 knits a second garment 514").
Morgan at least suggests wherein the transformed model is a three-dimensional (3D) model defined in a 3D space (see Fig. 5B, [0130] at least suggesting a3D body scan resulting in a 3D body map data 550).
Nevertheless, Ziegler teaches 3D body scan creating a 3D body map data model, both defined in a 3D space (see Fig. 5; [0112] "FIG. 5 shows a schematic image for creating a high-quality virtual 3D body model 26. 3D scans of people can be taken using a mobile phone app").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morgan’s body map data to be 3D as taught by Ziegler for ease of capture ([0112]), especially in the same art of endeavor of providing customized clothing (Ziegler [0001]), Morgan [0054], [0055]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Morgan further teaches prior to the converting of the 2D knitting map to the knitting instructions, presenting the 2D knitting map for review and edit by a user (see Fig. 5B, wherein the converting is at 506I after 512; wherein presented for review at 512; [0136] "first garment 508 may be carefully evaluated to determine what garment design changes may be desired in an effort to address some/all of the issues with the first garment 508...the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500 in the graphic design software...and thereby create a revised garment design 510"; [0138] "additionally or alternatively...a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised garment design input data 512"); and
updating the 2D knitting map according to revisions made by the user (updating the map with revisions results in a finalized 512).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Morgan further teaches prior to the converting of the 2D knitting map instructions, defining an updated 3D model based on the 2D knitting map (see Morgan, wherein the term “converting” in the claim is referring to converting after 512; see Fig. 5B; [0136] "first garment 508 may be carefully evaluated to determine what garment design changes may be desired in an effort to address some/all of the issues with the first garment 508...the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500 in the graphic design software...and thereby create a revised garment design 510"; [0138] "additionally or alternatively...a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised garment design input data 512"; wherein Claim 1 refers to revising directly to 512; wherein Claim 3 refers to revising on 510 (which is the 3D model in Fig. 5B)); and
updating the 2D knitting map using the updated 3D model (see Morgan Fig. 5B wherein changes to 510 result in 512; [0137] "the revised garment design 510…may be used to generate revised garment design input data shown as element 512 in Fig. 5B").
Regarding Claim 4, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Morgan further teaches wherein the 3D model is one of selected from a library, produced form imaging of a physical article, produced by a user algorithmically, or produced by the user manually (see Morgan Fig. 5B; "Fig. 5B shows an initial display of body map data…body map data 550 includes a thermal scan of the back upper torso of a human body…e.g., as also shown in Fig. 5C" for imaging of a physical article; see [0130] "body map data may come from any suitable source such as from an optical scan of a specific wearer's body...from a thermal scan...from a photograph or video data...or collected from a standard size source, such as a mannequin or other structure sized at a standard garment size (e.g., child/infant sizes 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months and 18 months; toddler/small child sizes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 6X; youth sizes 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16; adult sizes SX, S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL, etc.)" for library).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Morgan further teaches receiving a texture map representing a design, logo, pattern or other features to be produced as part of the knitted article knitted by the computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine (see Morgan, wherein previous knit map referred to one type of knit structural unit, such as a miss for holes, see Fig. 7 and [0148]; wherein the texture map is directed to another type of knit that is specifically for texture--[0144] "using the body scan 550…identify one or more areas of the garment structure where specific knit structural units may need to be provided and/or where one or more changes to existing knit structural units may need to be made, e.g., to achieve a desired benefit (e.g.,...raised texture"); [0148] "these 'knit structural units' may include, for example, knitted-in open holes, areas with higher porosity, areas with moisture wicking materials, areas with texture or other structure that help lift portions of the garment off the wearer's body surface (e.g., to enhance air flow), etc., at locations corresponding to higher amounts of released heat (based on information available in the thermal scan 550)"),
wherein the texture map specifies one or more of texture or color on the surface of the 3D model; (Morgan [0144] texture);
applying the texture map to the 3D model (see Morgan Fig. 5B wherein, based on body scan 550, the texture map is applied to the original model (3D as provided by Ziegler) at 500); and
immediately after the 2D knitting map has been produced, transferring information represented in the texture map from the 3D model to the 2D knitting map (see Morgan Fig. 5B wherein info from 500 is in 502, and is immediate inasmuch as there are no other steps in between a 3D model, provided by Ziegler, to the 2D knitting map).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Morgan further teaches wherein the 3D model represents a physical body as a collection of points in the 3D space ([0130] "body map data may come from any suitable source such as from an optical scan of a specific wearer's body...from a thermal scan").
Ziegler further teaches wherein the wherein the 3D model represents a physical body as a collection of points in the 3D space that are connected by geometric primitives (see Fig. 5 for geometric primitives; [0112] "FIG. 5 shows a schematic image for creating a high-quality virtual 3D body model 26. 3D scans of people can be taken using a mobile phone app. In this case, body scan data 24 of medium to poor quality are sufficient. The scan 24 is then mapped or projected onto an ideal reference model or a topology model 22 (fixed points that can be easily read from the scans, such as shoulders, breasts, buttocks, etc.). To this end, topology fixed points 16 of a virtual skeleton 15 (see FIG. 4) are mapped with the 3D body scan 24 of low or medium quality. These topology fixed points 16 are linked to corresponding or associated topology fixed points 16 of the topology model 22, and a digitally perfect 3D mesh body model 26 of the scanned body (of the customer) is created thereby. In particular, the topology model 22 is deformed during projection or mapping in order to adapt it to the size of the 3D scan 24. A topology model 25 adapted to the 3D scan 24 and thus deformed is also shown in FIG. 5 as an example. Digital fashion designs that are also provided with fixed or reference points 16 can subsequently be imaged or projected onto the perfect 3D mesh body model 18. A cutting pattern can then be generated on the basis of at least one set of cutting line rules”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morgan’s 3D model, as provided by Ziegler, to be connected by geometric primitives as a known format of displaying 3D body scan ([0112]) in same art of endeavor of customizing clothing.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Morgan further teaches wherein the 3D model is formed by scanning a real-world object (Morgan [0130] "body map data may come from any suitable source such as from an optical scan of a specific wearer's body...from a thermal scan", wherein Ziegler taught 3D).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 8.
Ziegler further teaches wherein the 3D model formed by scanning the real-world object is augmented through user manipulation of the 3D model in order to remove artifacts of the scanning and/or to provide customizations in one or more of shape and appearance ([0112] "FIG. 5 shows a schematic image for creating a high-quality virtual 3D body model 26. 3D scans of people can be taken using a mobile phone app. In this case, body scan data 24 of medium to poor quality are sufficient. The scan 24 is then mapped or projected onto an ideal reference model or a topology model 22 (fixed points that can be easily read from the scans, such as shoulders, breasts, buttocks, etc.). To this end, topology fixed points 16 of a virtual skeleton 15 (see FIG. 4) are mapped with the 3D body scan 24 of low or medium quality. These topology fixed points 16 are linked to corresponding or associated topology fixed points 16 of the topology model 22, and a digitally perfect 3D mesh body model 26 of the scanned body (of the customer) is created thereby. In particular, the topology model 22 is deformed during projection or mapping in order to adapt it to the size of the 3D scan 24. A topology model 25 adapted to the 3D scan 24 and thus deformed is also shown in FIG. 5 as an example. Digital fashion designs that are also provided with fixed or reference points 16 can subsequently be imaged or projected onto the perfect 3D mesh body model 18. A cutting pattern can then be generated on the basis of at least one set of cutting line rules”; in other words, 22+24 = 26, wherein 22 is adapted into 25, so that it combines with 24; for customized—see adapted/customization based on 3D scan 24; for augmentation --> [0028] "ideal reference model can be deformed (e.g. expanded...) until it is congruent with the customer's 3D body shell data"; in other words, 22 is deformed until it is 25, to be congruent with 24 to have a neural network transfer; for user manipulation -- [0021] "locally, by expanding and/or reducing the volume of the avatar, the surface thereof can be placed on the surface of the 3D scan", wherein one of ordinary skill in the art understands "locally" is directed to user manipulation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morgan’s customization via 3D model to be through augmentation and user manipulation as taught by Ziegler as a known method to provide accurate modeling in the same art of endeavor as customizing clothing ([0001]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Morgan further teaches wherein the 2D knitting map comprises a checkerboard-like array in which each pixel represents a loop of the knitted article (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Morgan teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium for a computer system comprising a processor (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; [0059] "computing devices that may be used in systems and methods in accordance with examples of the present disclosure mya include one or more input devices and a data processing system (e.g. including one or more microprocessors)"; [0060] "a computing device, such as design computer 102 may be programmed with software modules that perform various functions when executed by at least one processor. Software includes computer-executable instructions that may be stored on at least one tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium"),
the non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ([0060] for instructions; see Fig. 5B for application of the technology; [0129] "aspects of this technology also may be used for…articles of apparel. Apparel based aspects of this technology may include one or more of: methods of designing and/or forming garments, methods of visually depicting garment designs and/or entering design changes, systems for performing the methods, and/or computer readable media, including computer-executable instructions stored thereon, for performing the methods and/or operating the system"):
transform a model defined in a space into a two-dimensional (2D) knitting map that specifies respective locations of stitches for a knitted article ([0131] "Fig. 5B shows an initial display of body map data on a computer display device"; [0130] "body map data may come from any suitable source such as from an optical scan of a specific wearer's body...from a thermal scan"; for 2D knitting map -- [0132] "based on the body map data 550…garment design input data 502 for a garment design may be generated...this garment design input data 502 may include a data set with instructions for knitting a computer controlled knitting machine to produce the desired garment design 500"; for knitting map with location of stitches --> [0132] "the garment design input data 502 created ...may include data representing different knit structural units and/or different knitting actions at various locations in the garment structure"; see Fig. 7 for example of 502 knitting map);
groups of the stitches forming courses and wales of the knitted article (see Fig. 7 for “course no.” of stitch (and therefore wale); [0007] "the term 'knit structural unit'…means a combination of two or more stitches and/or needle actions in a course direction and/or a wale direction"; [0154] "each column 702 (vertical in Fig. 7) of the bitmap 700 represents a specific needle of a knitting machine 506...and/or a wale of the garment design or garment structure to be knitted, and each row 704 (horizontal in Fig. 7) of the bitmap 700 represents a specific course of the garment design or garment structure to be knitted"),
the 2D knitting map contain apexes which terminate an end of respective pairs of the courses (see Fig. 7 for detailed 2-D knitting map; wherein there are respective pairs of courses that have ends, and therefore apexes; see also 502 in Fig. 5B for apexes/ends of 2-D knitting map),
wherein all of the courses of the 2D knitting map extend along lines that are arranged parallel to one another (see Fig. 7 for parallel);
for a portion of the 2D knitting map, decreasing or increasing a spatial distance between respective ones of the apexes within the portion of the 2D knitting map (see 512 in Fig. 5B, wherein a spatial distance at least increased, if not decreased, between some of the knit structural units and therefore some of the ends; for decrease/increase spatial distance -- [0134] "garment design input data 502…operates the knitting machine 506 to create (knit) a first garment 508 based on the garment design input data 502"; for based on a user-provided input --> [0135] "because of various factors...sometimes ...first garment 508....does not turn out as expected...may not perform in the manner desired/anticipated...may not fit correctly...any of these types of issues...with the first garment 508 in this process may cause the garment designer to want to alter the garment design"; [0136] "the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500...and thereby create a revised garment 510...the revised garment 510 may include changes...to at least one of: a size of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a position of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a size of the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a position of the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the first knit structural unit with respect to the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the first knit structural unit with respect to another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; a relative positioning of the second knit structural unit with respect to another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; eliminating at least one of the first knit structural unit or the second knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; adding one or more additional knit structural units (which may be the same as or different from either or both of the first and/or second knit structural units) in the revised garment design 510; changing a material in one or more portions of the revised garment design 510 (and optionally changing a material of some or all of the first knit structural unit and/or the second knit structural unit); changing a distance between two occurrences of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; changing a number of knit stitch actions between two occurrences of the first knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; changing a distance between the first knit structural unit and another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510; and/or changing a number of knit stitch actions between the first knit structural unit and another knit structural unit in the revised garment design 510"; for within 2D knitting map -- [0138] "additionally or alternatively, rather than making the changes to the garment design 510 in the graphic design software, a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised design input data 512"),
wherein an amount of the spatial distance decreased or increased between the respective ones the apexes of the portion of the 2D knitting map is based on a user-provided input (see Fig. 5B, wherein A (changing 508 to 514) is based on user-input after shirt requires changes; [0134] "garment design input data 502…operates the knitting machine 506 to create (knit) a first garment 508 based on the garment design input data 502"; based on a user-provided input -- [0135] "because of various factors...sometimes ...first garment 508....does not turn out as expected...may not perform in the manner desired/anticipated...may not fit correctly...any of these types of issues...with the first garment 508 in this process may cause the garment designer to want to alter the garment design"; [0136] "the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500...and thereby create a revised garment 510"),
and decreasing or increasing the spatial distance between respective ones of the apexes is performed subject to knitting rules defined by a computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine (for a computer flatbed knit machine -- [0140] "using the revised knitting machine instruction data set, at least one knitting machine 506 knits a second garment 514"; [0154] 'knitting machine 506 (e.g.,...a flat knitting machine"), wherein the instruction data set is computer controlled (see Fig. 1); or, see also [0139] "data conversion, when needed, may take place at the design computer 102...at a computer included with or operating the knitting machine 506, at another computer", which means the output instructions are also from a computer/computer-controlled; knitting rules-- see Fig. 7 for knitting rules of whether actions are to tuck or knit or transfer or miss, which are limited by the flatbed knitting machine as opposed to, for example, over/under actions in a loom; as such, the spatial distance formed by these actions is performed subject to these rules/actions)
such that the adjusted spatial distance between the apexes produces the 2D knitting map in a form that is directly executable by the computer-controlled knitting machine (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 7 for the form executable by knitting machine)
without requiring further topological modification of the 2D knitting map (Fig. 5B teaches a final product form that has a corresponding Fig. 7; wherein the actions knit/tuck/transfer/miss forms a topology and therefore would be topological modifications);
convert the 2D knitting map to knitting instructions for the computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine ([0139] "revised garment design input data 512 may be converted, if necessary, to a knitting machine instruction data set (S510, Fig. 5A)"; for a computer flatbed knit machine -- [0140] "using the revised knitting machine instruction data set, at least one knitting machine 506 knits a second garment 514"; [0154] 'knitting machine 506 (e.g.,...a flat knitting machine"), wherein the instruction data set is computer controlled (see Fig. 1); or, see also [0139] "data conversion, when needed, may take place at the design computer 102...at a computer included with or operating the knitting machine 506, at another computer", which means the output instructions are also from a computer/computer-controlled); and
transmit said knitting instructions to said computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine so as to produce the knitted article in accordance with the knitting instructions (for transmitting -- see Fig. 5B after 506I ([0139] "input data received at input device 506I…may include…the revised garment design input data 512 before it is converted to knitting machine instruction data"; for produced knitted article see Fig. 5B for 514 -- [0140] "using the revised knitting machine instruction data set, at least one knitting machine 506 knits a second garment 514").
Morgan at least suggests wherein the transformed model is a three-dimensional (3D) model defined in a 3D space (see Fig. 5B, [0130] at least suggesting a3D body scan resulting in a 3D body map data 550).
Nevertheless, Ziegler teaches 3D body scan creating a 3D body map data model, both defined in a 3D space (see Fig. 5; [0112] "FIG. 5 shows a schematic image for creating a high-quality virtual 3D body model 26. 3D scans of people can be taken using a mobile phone app").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morgan’s body map data to be 3D as taught by Ziegler for ease of capture ([0112]), especially in the same art of endeavor of providing customized clothing (Ziegler [0001]), Morgan [0054], [0055]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Morgan further teaches prior to the converting of the 2D knitting map to the knitting instructions, present the 2D knitting map for review and edit by a user (see Fig. 5B, wherein the converting is at 506I after 512; wherein presented for review at 512; [0136] "first garment 508 may be carefully evaluated to determine what garment design changes may be desired in an effort to address some/all of the issues with the first garment 508...the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500 in the graphic design software...and thereby create a revised garment design 510"; [0138] "additionally or alternatively...a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised garment design input data 512"); and
update the 2D knitting map according to revisions made by the user (updating the map with revisions results in a finalized 512).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Modified Morgan further teaches prior to the converting of the 2D knitting map instructions, define an updated 3D model based on the 2D knitting map (see Morgan, wherein the term “converting” in the claim is referring to converting after 512; see Fig. 5B; [0136] "first garment 508 may be carefully evaluated to determine what garment design changes may be desired in an effort to address some/all of the issues with the first garment 508...the designer may make changes to the initial/previous garment design 500 in the graphic design software...and thereby create a revised garment design 510"; [0138] "additionally or alternatively...a designer may make one, some, or all of the desired garment changes directly in the revised garment design input data 512"; wherein Claim 1 refers to revising directly to 512; wherein Claim 3 refers to revising on 510 (which is the 3D model in Fig. 5B)); and
update the 2D knitting map using the updated 3D model (see Morgan Fig. 5B wherein changes to 510 result in 512; [0137] "the revised garment design 510…may be used to generate revised garment design input data shown as element 512 in Fig. 5B").
Regarding Claim 14, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 14 is the same as the body of Claim 4. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 4 for the rejection of the body of Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Modified Morgan further teaches receive a texture map representing a design, logo, pattern or other features to be produced as part of the knitted article knitted by the computer-controlled flatbed knitting machine (see Morgan, wherein previous knit map referred to one type of knit structural unit, such as a miss for holes, see Fig. 7 and [0148]; wherein the texture map is directed to another type of knit that is specifically for texture--[0144] "using the body scan 550…identify one or more areas of the garment structure where specific knit structural units may need to be provided and/or where one or more changes to existing knit structural units may need to be made, e.g., to achieve a desired benefit (e.g.,...raised texture"); [0148] "these 'knit structural units' may include, for example, knitted-in open holes, areas with higher porosity, areas with moisture wicking materials, areas with texture or other structure that help lift portions of the garment off the wearer's body surface (e.g., to enhance air flow), etc., at locations corresponding to higher amounts of released heat (based on information available in the thermal scan 550)"),
wherein the texture map specifies one or more of texture or color on the surface of the 3D model; (Morgan [0144] texture);
apply the texture map to the 3D model (see Morgan Fig. 5B wherein, based on body scan 550, the texture map is applied to the original model (3D as provided by Ziegler) at 500); and
immediately after the 2D knitting map has been produced, transfer information represented in the texture map from the 3D model to the 2D knitting map (see Morgan Fig. 5B wherein info from 500 is in 502, and is immediate inasmuch as there are no other steps in between a 3D model, provided by Ziegler, to the 2D knitting map).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 17 is the same as the body of Claim 7. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 7 for the rejection of the body of Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 18 is the same as the body of Claim 8. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 8 for the rejection of the body of Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 18.
The body of Claim 19 is the same as the body of Claim 9. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 9 for the rejection of the body of Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Morgan teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
The body of Claim 20 is the same as the body of Claim 10. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 10 for the rejection of the body of Claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 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--
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that the specification describes course generation and related topology adjustments are performed based on knitting rules, which take into account machine-specific parameters—no indication has been provided of where this is recited in the specification. Though the term “knitting rules” is found in [0005] and [0051], the closest recitation found to the alleged “machine-specific parameters” is [0042] “desired loop parameters for a target knitting machine.” As such, the recitation in [0042] seems to be all that is required for “knitting rules,” and Morgan Fig. 7 clearly teaches the specific knit actions/loop parameters for the knitting machine.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that the specification explains that the apex attraction and diffusion are applied to ensure that the resulting knitting map gets pulled up by the knitting machine without holes—though “without holes” is disclosed in [0056], such a recitation has not been claimed. Furthermore, no clarity has been provided in the specification whether the “results” are the final product, the knitting map, or some other element.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that the specification indicates that the 2D knitting map is converted directly into knitting instructions—as best understood, support is directed to g-code knitting instructions in [0040].
Even if persuasive support is provided for the aforementioned, Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111. In other words, the limitations would have to actually be claimed. Otherwise, the prior art currently meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. As such, remarks on pages 8, 9 indicating that the amended claims now provide constraint-bound apex adjustment as allegedly discussed in the specification is not persuasive. Claims have not required any specifics to “knitting rules”, claims have not discussed some element “without holes”, and Claims do recite that the 2D knitting map is directly converted into knitting instructions, such as g-code. On the contrary, Claims include new matter by indicating that the 2D knitting map is directly executable by the knitting machine (without g-code).
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Morgan does not disclose apexes as topological termination points of course pairs arising from a knitting map—examiner respectfully disagrees. Morgan Fig. 7 clearly teaches courses with apexes/termination points, wherein these points are topological inasmuch as the points represent topological structures, wherein there are multiple pairs of courses, wherein the courses and therefore apexes are of/arising from a knitting map.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Morgan does not teach enforcing apex spacing to satisfy machine feasibility constraints based on the amended limitation—examiner respectfully disagrees. As aforementioned, the amendment, such as “knitting rules”, does not require such a narrow interpretation as “machine feasibility constraints”, especially as [0042] merely mentions loop parameters. Support for such “machine feasibility constraints” being disclosed in the original disclosure has neither been provided nor found.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Morgan does not teach guaranteeing a modified knitting map is directly executable without requiring further topology edits based on the amendments—examiner respectfully disagrees. Amendments do not require such a narrow interpretation. Nevertheless, Morgan clearly teaches a final modified product, and therefore knitting map, executable by a machine, without requiring further topology edits as a final product.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that Morgan is iterative while the invention performs spacing in advance and therefore are different—examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if Morgan has an iterative process (the iteration is not necessarily required, but is a possible element), there is still a final product, before which spacing is performed. The claims are comprising claims, not consisting of claims, and can comprise other steps.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that the amendment requires being constrained by knitting-machine parameters—examiner respectfully disagrees, as aforementioned with the discussions directed to “knitting rules”; such an amendment does not require such a narrow interpretation, especially in light of [0042].
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that there is no motivation for direct executability-- the remarks are directed to a new amendment (“directly executable”), and would not have been discussed beforehand. Nevertheless, examiner notes that no modification is currently required, especially pending clarification of the indefiniteness.
Pertaining to remarks on page 9 that the amended claims prevent the generation of knitting maps that are geometrically valid but physically unknittable—examiner respectfully disagrees, as aforementioned with the discussion directed to “knitting rules”; such an amendment does not require such a narrow interpretation, especially in light of [0042].
For compact prosecution-- even if persuasive support can be provided and actually claimed for the alleged “constraints” and being “geometrically valid but physically unknittable”, examiner directs attention to the pertinent art in the conclusion section. Such a concept, of ensuring textile data is not only valid but can be physically produced, is known in the art.
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: Mizuno (USPN 7840304), Tashiro (USPN 8276531), Hagino (USPN 7212879), Bailie (USPN 6600966), Tajima et al (USPN 4960061) directed to ensuring textile data is not only valid but can be physically produced based on machine constraints; Komuro (USPN 6032594), Mori (USPN 5791270) directed to not only ensuring valid data for physical machine constraints but also the correction of invalid data based on constraints.
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