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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed on 11/26/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent.
Claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are now amended to include that the various claim elements are “automatically performed” by a processor and or/computer system. The argument is not persuasive. The additional element of the steps being automatically performed by a processor and/or computer system amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). This type of limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility framework, nor does it provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Regarding dependent claims 7-8, 20-22, 24, and 26, Applicant’s arguments rely upon the arguments presented with regards to the independent claims and are similarly unpersuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the prior rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 16, Applicant argues that none of Knudson (US 2014/0222612 A1), Bauer (US 2003/0216969 A1), and Almeida (US 2011/0106580 A1) teach or render obvious the claimed elements “storing a plurality of client profiles comprising: a client identification information, a family member information, a clothing size information, and a purchase history information” and that such actions are “automatically performed” by a processor and/or computer system.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the rejection is based on a combination of the Knudson, Bauer, and Almeida references. Knudson discloses that a client profile having client identification information (see para. 0046). Knudson is not relied upon for disclosing “a family member information, a clothing size information, and a purchase history information”. Instead, Bauer is relied upon for teaching family member information and clothing size information (see para. 0144), and Almeida is relied upon for teaching purchase history information (see para. 0031). With regards to the amended limitations drawn to the steps being “automatically performed” by a processor and/or computer system, Knudson discloses a server which receives photographs and associates them with a client social media profile (see para. 0040, 0045-0046). Here, the server contains a processor which automatically stores and performs the operations to manage the client profiles.
As such, the rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21-22, 24, and 26 are maintained herein.
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, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are directed to a method or system, which are within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 9 and method Claim 16. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. (Previously Presented) A method comprising:
a processor automatically performing the steps of:
storing a plurality of client profiles at a client profile database of a clienteling computer system, each of said plurality of client profiles comprising: a client identification information, a family member information, a clothing size information, and a purchase history information;
receiving, at said clienteling computer system, a photo of an item provided by a client;
updating said client’s client profile at said client profile database to include said photo of said item;
receiving a description of a new item;
automatically searching said client profile database to identify client profiles that include said photo of said item related to said new item;
automatically sending an electronic message to a retailer’s mobile computing device, said electronic message comprising: a contact information for said identified client profiles and an identifier for said new item.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, set forth or describe “certain methods of organizing human activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite storing client profiles, receiving a new item for sale, searching the client profiles for profiles that relate to the new item, and sending contact information for the identified profiles to a retailer. These limitations describe a commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor, client profile database, clienteling computer system, and retailer mobile computing device (claims 1, 9, and 16) is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 9 and 16 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: processor, client profile database, clienteling computer system, and retailer mobile computing device (claims 1, 9, and 16). The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0034] about implementation using general purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 9, and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 7-8, 20-22, 24, and 26 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 16 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knudson (US 2014/0222612 A1) in view of Almeida (US 2011/0106580 A1), further in view of Bauer (US 2003/0216969 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, Knudson discloses a computer-implemented method (and associated computer system) comprising:
a processor automatically performing the steps of:
storing a plurality of client profiles at a client profile database of a clienteling computer system, each of said plurality of client profiles comprising: a client identification information (see para. 0046),
receiving, at said clienteling computer system, a photo of an item provided by a client (see para. 0040);
updating said client's client profile at said client profile database to include said photo of said item (see para. 0040);
Knudson further discloses recommending products based on the user photograph and affinity, i.e. identifying products by automatically identifying related products (see para. 0043). However, Knudson does not explicitly disclose, but Almeida teaches:
the client profile includes purchase history information (see para. 0031);
receiving a description of a new item (see para. 0027-0028);
automatically searching said client profile database to identify client profiles with an affinity to said new item (see para. 0031); and
automatically sending an electronic message to a retailer's mobile computing device (see para. 0023), said electronic message comprising:
a contact information for said identified client profiles and an identifier for said new item (see para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Knudson to include the features taught by Almeida.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in order to enable a retailer to target advertisements for a new product (see Almeida, para. 0027).
Knudson does not explicitly disclose, but Bauer teaches a client profile which contains a family member information and a clothing size information (see para. 0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knudson to include the features of Bauer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to determine appropriate items for the customer (see Bauer, para. 0144).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Knudson further discloses said processor automatically utilizing the client profile to develop relevant offers to the client from a group of offers consisting of: new items for sale, items for date specific events, items that fit a client's needs, items that fit a client's purchase behavior and items on sale (see para. 0043).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knudson (US 2014/0222612 A1) in view of Almeida (US 2011/0106580 A1), further in view of Bauer (US 2003/0216969 A1), further in view of Scott-Leikach (US 2006/0237532 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Knudson discloses said processor automatically updating the client profile with information received from the client (see para. 0040). Knudson does not explicitly disclose, but Scott-Leikach teaches: updating the client profile with information received from an associate (see para. 0129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Knudson to include the features taught by Scott-Leikach.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to enable future use of the data for marketing purposes (see Scott-Leikach, para. 0129).
Claims 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knudson (US 2014/0222612 A1) in view of Almeida (US 2011/0106580 A1), further in view of Bauer (US 2003/0216969 A1), further in view of Silkey (US 2002/0087404 A1).
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 26, Knudson does not explicitly disclose, but Silkey teaches storing important date information for each of said plurality of client profiles; automatically monitoring each of said plurality of client profiles at said client profile database for said important date information; and automatically sending an important date electronic message to said retailer's mobile computing device, said important date electronic message comprising: said important date, said contact information for said client profile comprising said important date, and an identifier for said important date (see para. 0102-0107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Knudson to include the features taught by Silkey.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow a professional service provider to communicate with a broad audience or a refined and specifically targeted group of recipients in an efficient, inexpensive manner (see Silkey, para. 0026).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamartino (US 2016/0335692 A1) discloses systems and methods for matching user provided images that include representations of items with sellers of those items. A management service, as described herein, may provide a web site where users can post images, view images, share images, correspond with other users, etc. The management service may identify items represented in the images and determine one or more sellers that offer those items for sale. When another user requests to view the user provided image, the image, seller information identifying the seller determined to sell the item represented in the image, and/or a purchase control that may be selected by a user to initiate a purchase with the seller is presented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693