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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Within the first line of claim 1, please replace “A electronic device” with “An electronic device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Within each of claims 1, 11 and 12, the applicant recites, “wherein the pattern block is matched with a plurality of 2D clothing patterns of different designs including the 2D clothing pattern”. Note that each of claims 1, 11 and 12 is directed at either a method or a method defined by instructions performed by a processor. However, the above recitation does not appear to be a method step or supportive structure. Note that the recitation is not defining the pattern block, but rather is stating that the pattern block has at least one additional 2D clothing pattern matched thereto. Where is this match? In other words, what structure defines or supports this additional match or matches? Is it stored in a memory or database? It appears that essential structure is missing from the claim language. Or is the recitation meant to be functional? Or is the applicant trying to recite that the process/method includes additional steps wherein the pattern block is being matched to other 2D clothing patterns prior to the claim steps?
All remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WOLPER et al. (US 2010/0305909 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 12, WOLPER discloses an electronic device comprising: at least one processor including processing circuitry (para 0060); and memory (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (para 0060): match a two-dimensional clothing pattern (2D panel contours output from 200; Fig. 1) (note 310 of figure 2) to a pattern block (3D template) (note panels/contours 312 of 3D template, used for matching, as shown in figure 2) (note pattern stage 300, including step 302, as shown in figure 1) (para 0034-0043); and render a draping result corresponding to the 2D clothing pattern based on the pattern block matched with the 2D clothing pattern (note drape stage 500, particularly step 504, of figure 1). Note that the device of WOLPER is meant to be used over and over again wherein each pattern block can be matched with a plurality of 2D clothing patterns to enable the generation of infinite photorealistic images. Regardless, note that the matched pattern block (3D template) of WOLPER can be the closest match (not an exact match) to the 2D clothing pattern wherein additional adjustments are applied thereto to create a variant. Accordingly, WOLPER discloses wherein the pattern block (3D template) is matched with a plurality of 2D clothing patterns of different designs (the 2D pattern of WOLPER that is edited/adjusted and the original 2D pattern used to create the 3D template).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 13-14, WOLPER discloses wherein the instructions to render the draping result comprises instructions to render the draping result based on sewing (stitching) information corresponding to a sewing unit (edge/curve of pattern block) of the 2D clothing pattern included in the pattern block (para 0039, 0041 and 0045).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, WOLPER discloses wherein the pattern block (3D template including panels/contours thereof) includes sewing information (connection info) indicating a portion of the pattern block that does not require sewing (points of perimeter that are not part of the subset that define connection/stitching points) (para 0039-0041) (note 316 of figure 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, WOLPER discloses wherein the instructions to match the 2D clothing pattern to the pattern block (3D template) comprises instructions to match the 2D clothing pattern to the pattern block based on user input (manual selection by a human operator) (para 0037).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, WOLPER discloses wherein the instructions to match the 2D clothing pattern (2D panel contours output from 200; Fig. 1) (note 310 of figure 2) to the pattern block (3D template) (note panels/contours 312 of 3D template, used for matching, as shown in figure 2) comprises instructions to match the 2D clothing pattern to the pattern block based on shape information (contours) of the 2D clothing pattern (Figures 1-2) (para 0034-0043).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, WOLPER wherein the instructions to match the 2D clothing pattern (2D panel contours output from 200; Fig. 1) (note 310 of figure 2) to the pattern block (3D template) (note panels/contours 312 of 3D template, used for matching, as shown in figure 2) comprises instructions to match the 2D clothing patterns corresponding to a garment with pattern blocks of a type (3D template corresponds to a particularly “garment style”) corresponding to the garment (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, WOLPER discloses wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: verify matching of the 2D clothing pattern to the pattern block based on shape information (contours) of the 2D pattern and corresponding information of the pattern block (note “Incoming matches existing?” step of figure 2) (note step 302 with PATTERN stage 300 of figure 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, since the processor (para 0060) of WOLPER discloses the matching of the 2D clothing pattern (2D panel contours output from 200; Fig. 1) (note 310 of figure 2) to the pattern block (3D template) (note panels/contours 312 of 3D template, used for matching, as shown in figure 2) based on the contours (and therefore style) of each, WOLPER is inherently matching (and thus verifying the matching through the matching and/or draping process) the 2D clothing pattern to the pattern block based on the number of edges of the pattern block and the number of edges of the 2D clothing pattern (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, WOLPER discloses wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor (para 0060) to: adjust a size of the 2D clothing pattern such that a length of an edge of the 2D clothing pattern corresponds to a length of an edge of another 2D clothing pattern to be sewn (note the TRANSFORM stage 400 of figure 1) (para 0043-0046).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as cited on attached PTO-892, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that US 2015/0339853 A1 is directed at a digitization system wherein a 2D footwear pattern is matched to a 3D pattern block/template as shown in figures 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 J 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732