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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 10/17/2025 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 5, 6, 7, 10 are pending and rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
1. Claims 5, 6, 7, and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Each of claims 5, 6, 7, and 10 repeatedly recite a “supplier terminal” as optionally executing various steps of the performed method. However, the specification, while generally stating that the invention “may be implemented on many types of electronic devices with digital video capabilities”, the disclosure is absent any discussion of a supplier-side terminal, or any manner of computing device on the supplier side that may perform any functions claimed. Accordingly, applicant did not have possession of a “supplier terminal” performing any of the claimed method steps. However, for purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “supplier terminal” is a supplier-side general-purpose computing device.
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.
2. Claims 5, 6, and 7 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.
As noted above, the claimed “supplier terminal” is interpreted as a supplier-side general-purpose computing device, under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Each of claims 5, 6, and 7 recite steps parallel to:
manufacturing, by the supplier terminal, the other products matching the personalized size customization parameter information, and
delivering, by the supplier terminal or the e-commerce website, the on stock products and the other products, both of which matching with the personalized size customization parameter information, to a customer;
It is unclear how a computing device (i.e., “supplier side terminal”) could perform a step of “manufacturing…the other products”, as a general-purpose computing device has no manufacturing capability. Appropriate collection is required to either specify how such entities are capable of manufacturing apparel products, or clarify what the “manufacturing” step entails that would allow such entities to perform it.
It is unclear how either a computing device (i.e., “supplier side terminal”) or an e-commerce website could perform a step of “delivering…the on stock products and the other products”, as a general-purpose computing device has no delivery capability, and an e-commerce website is a collection of executed code served by a web server. Appropriate collection is required to either specify how such entities are capable of delivering apparel products, or clarify what the “delivering” step entails that would allow such entities to perform it.
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.
3. Claims 5, 6, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 10 are directed to facilitating the purchase of tailor-made clothing, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 5, 6, 7, and 10 each recites a method and at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 5, the claim sets forth a process in which the purchase of a tailor-made garment item is facilitated, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
a personalized size information column option of clothing, shoes, and hats;
collecting personalized size customization parameter information merged into a character string of a name of an order product, or a customized data item in an order record, individually or in batches;
extracting the personalized size customization parameter information from the character string or the customized data item, individually or in batches;
matching the personalized size customization parameter information with fixed size parameters of on stock products;
dividing sizes of pieces of clothing according to the personalized size customization parameter information to cut the pieces for producing other products which are not on stock,
manufacturing the other products matching the personalized size customization parameter information, and
delivering the on stock products and the other products, both of which matching with the personalized size customization parameter information, to a customer;
creates the personalized size information column option of the clothing, shoes, and hats,
displaying personalized size parameters of a product for the customer to confirm size customization information;
enabling that the product can only be ordered by personalized size customization orders, by only presenting the selection box in the "size" column; or
enabling that the product can be ordered by both fixed-size orders and personalized size customization orders, by presenting the selection box additionally based on presenting a fixed size of the product.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to facilitate the purchase of tailor-made clothing. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 5 does recite additional limitations:
displaying, by an e-commerce website,
in an interface
by a supplier terminal or the e-commerce website
by the supplier terminal
wherein the e-commerce website
in the interface
and a third-party website establishes a continuously updated information database of the personalized size customization parameter information for specific parts of each category of the clothing, shoes, and hats;
the e-commerce website comprises a selection box that can connect to the third-party website, according to an agreement made by an e-commerce enterprise of the e-commerce website and a third-party enterprise of the third-party website;
when a customer terminal logs in to the e-commerce website, the e-commerce enterprise of which has the agreement with the third-party enterprise of the third-party website, to request a size customization service, in response to clicking on the selection box, popping, by the third party website, up a dialogue box;
entering an account and a password registered on the third-party website, by the customer terminal, to request a third-party server to extract the personalized size customization parameter information;
in response to a successful verification after the third-party server receives an instruction, transmitting, by the third-part website, the personalized size customization parameter information to the e-commence website;
in the dialog box
by the e-commerce website
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (i.e., “displaying, by an e-commerce website”, “in an interface”, “wherein the e-commerce website”, “in the interface”, “the e-commerce website comprises a selection box”, “by the customer terminal”, “in the dialog box”, “by a supplier terminal or the e-commerce website”, “by the supplier terminal”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., “establishes a continuously updated information database”, “when a customer terminal logs in to the e-commerce website… popping up a dialogue box”, “entering an account and a password registered on the third party website”, “in response to a successful verification after the third-party server receives an instruction, transmitting the personalized size customization parameter information to the e-commence website”). The specification is generally silent on the technical operating environment of the invention, only reciting, at a very high level of generality, the use of “devices”, a “website”, “server”, and “database”. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network), electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and common web browser functionality (e.g., forward and back functionality) have each been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claim 6
Regarding independent claim 6, the claim sets forth a process in which the purchase of a tailor-made garment item is facilitated, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
a personalized size information column option of clothing, shoes, and hats;
collecting personalized size customization parameter information individually or in batches;
extracting the personalized size customization parameter information from the character string or the customized data item, individually or in batches;
matching the personalized size customization parameter information with fixed size parameters of on stock products;
dividing sizes of pieces of clothing according to the personalized size customization parameter information to cut the pieces for producing other products which are not on stock,
manufacturing the other products matching the personalized size customization parameter information, and
delivering the on stock products and the other products, both of which matching with the personalized size customization parameter information, to a customer;
to realize a tailor-made function for the clothing, shoes, and hats;
displaying personalized size parameters of a product for the customer to confirm size customization information;
using the personalized size customization parameter information, to perform personalized size customizing.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to facilitate the purchase of tailor-made clothing. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 6 does recite additional limitations:
displaying, by an e-commerce website,
by a supplier terminal or the e-commerce website
in an interface
wherein to establish a database of the personalized size customization parameter information of various categories of the clothing, shoes, and hats on a third party website, the third party website stores the personalized size customization parameter information of the various categories of the clothing, shoes, and hats, according to an agreement made by an e- commerce enterprise of the e-commerce website and a third-party enterprise of the third-party website
when a customer terminal logs in to the e-commerce website, the e-commerce enterprise of which has the agreement with the third-party enterprise of the third-party website, to request a size customization service, in response to clicking on the selection box, popping, by the third party website, up a dialogue box;
in response to a successful verification after the third-party server receives an instruction, transmitting, by the third-part website, the personalized size customization parameter information to the e-commence website;
stored by the third-party website, by a customer terminal, in any e-commerce website, the e-commerce enterprise of which has the agreement with the third-party enterprise of the third-party website
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (i.e., “displaying, by an e-commerce website”, “in an interface”, “by the supplier terminal or the e-commerce website”, “when a customer terminal logs in to the e-commerce website… popping up a dialogue box”, “entering an account and a password registered on the third party website”, “in response to a successful verification after the third-party server receives an instruction, transmitting the personalized size customization parameter information to the e-commence website”, etc.) and insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., “establish a database…stores the personalized size customization parameter information”, “stored by the third party website”). The specification is generally silent on the technical operating environment of the invention, only reciting, at a very high level of generality, the use of a “website”, “server”, and “database”. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network), electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and common web browser functionality (e.g., forward and back functionality) have each been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claim 7
Regarding independent claim 7, the claim sets forth a process in which the purchase of a tailor-made garment item is facilitated, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
a personalized size information column option of clothing, shoes, and hats;
collecting personalized size customization parameter information merged into a character string of a name of an order product, or a customized data item in an order record, individually or in batches;
extracting the personalized size customization parameter information from the character string or the customized data item, individually or in batches;
matching the personalized size customization parameter information with fixed size parameters of on stock products;
dividing sizes of pieces of clothing according to the personalized size customization parameter information to cut the pieces for producing other products which are not on stock,
manufacturing the other products matching the personalized size customization parameter information, and
delivering the on stock products and the other products, both of which matching with the personalized size customization parameter information, to a customer;
using the personalized size customization parameter information, the e-commerce enterprise of which has an agreement with the third-party enterprise of the third-party website, to perform personalized size customizing;
using personalized size parameters, by the customer, to order products of a same category from different brands according to the customer's preferences, wherein the personalized size customization parameter information is commonly used
displaying personalized size parameters of a product for the customer to confirm size customization information;
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to facilitate the purchase of tailor-made clothing. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 7 does recite additional limitations:
displaying, by an e-commerce website,
in an interface
by the supplier terminal or the e-commerce website
by the supplier terminal
by the e-commerce website
stored by a third-party website, by a customer terminal, in any e-commerce website
when the customer terminal logins into any e-commerce website, the e-commerce enterprise of which has the agreement with the third-party enterprise of the third-party website
on different e-commerce websites
information used by all e-commerce websites worldwide, the e-commerce enterprise of which having the agreements with the third-party enterprise of the third-party website.
when a customer terminal logs in to the e-commerce website, the e-commerce enterprise of which has the agreement with the third-party enterprise of the third-party website, to request a size customization service, in response to clicking on the selection box, popping up, by the third- party website a dialogue box;
entering an account and a password registered on the third-party website, by the customer terminal, to request a third-party server to extract the personalized size customization parameter information;
in response to a successful verification after the third-party server receives an instruction, transmitting, by the third-party website, the personalized size customization parameter information to the e-commence website;
in the dialog box
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (i.e., “displaying, by an e-commerce website”, “in an interface”, “by a third-party website, by a customer terminal, in any e-commerce website”, “when a customer terminal logs in to the e-commerce website… popping up a dialogue box”, “entering an account and a password registered on the third party website”, “in response to a successful verification after the third-party server receives an instruction, transmitting the personalized size customization parameter information to the e-commence website”, etc.) and insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., “stored”, “information used by all e-commerce websites worldwide”). The specification is generally silent on the technical operating environment of the invention, only reciting, at a very high level of generality, the use of a “website”, “server”, and “database”. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network), electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and common web browser functionality (e.g., forward and back functionality) have each been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claim 10
Regarding independent claim 10, the claim sets forth a process in which the purchase of a tailor-made garment item is facilitated, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
a personalized size information column option of clothing, shoes, and hats;
collecting personalized size customization parameter information individually or in batches;
matching the personalized size customization parameter information with fixed size parameters of on stock products;
dividing sizes of pieces of clothing according to the personalized size customization parameter information to cut the pieces for producing other products which are not on stock,
manufacturing the other products matching the personalized size customization parameter information, and
delivering the on stock products and the other products, both of which matching with the personalized size customization parameter information, to a customer;
extracting the personalized size customization parameter information of a product from a character string of a name of an order product, or a customized data item in an order record, individually or in batches.
displaying, personalized size parameters of a product for the customer to confirm size customization information.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to facilitate the purchase of tailor-made clothing. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 10 does recite additional limitations:
displaying, by an e-commerce website,
in an interface
by a supplier terminal or the e-commerce website
when a customer terminal logs in to the e-commerce website, the e-commerce enterprise of which has the agreement with the third-party enterprise of the third-party website, to request a size customization service, in response to clicking on the selection box, popping up, by the third- party website a dialogue box;
entering an account and a password registered on the third-party website, by the customer terminal, to request a third-party server to extract the personalized size customization parameter information;
in response to a successful verification after the third-party server receives an instruction, transmitting, by the third-party website, the personalized size customization parameter information to the e-commence website; and
in the dialog box
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (i.e., “displaying, by an e-commerce website”, “in an interface”, “by a supplier terminal or the e-commerce website”, “when a customer terminal logs in to the e-commerce website… popping up a dialogue box”, “entering an account and a password registered on the third party website”, “in response to a successful verification after the third-party server receives an instruction, transmitting the personalized size customization parameter information to the e-commence website”). The specification is generally silent on the technical operating environment of the invention, only reciting, at a very high level of generality, the use of a “website”, “server”, and “database”. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network), electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and common web browser functionality (e.g., forward and back functionality) have each been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, and are persuasive. However, in light of the present amendments, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112 have been set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts:
These steps are not mental processes and are not capable of performance without the cooperation of the recited terminals and servers of the websites. Thus, claim 5 is not merely a high-level business concept but represents a concrete technological process implemented across multiple computing systems, and is not directed to a fundamental economic practice, a method of organizing human activity, or an abstract idea of itself but rather to specific technological operations carried out across different computing systems. Thus, as a whole, claim 5 cannot be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea.
However, the merely requirement that technology must be used to implement a claim does not cure the claimed concept of merely being an abstract idea generally applied to that technology, as is the case here. The specification’s lack of disclosure of any technical detail as to the operating environment supports the assertion that the claim merely represents the general application of the abstract idea of facilitating the purchase of tailor-made clothing to a general-purpose computing environment. As repeatedly emphasized by the Courts, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate that judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further asserts:
Claim 5 is directed to solving the technological problem of how to share and confirm personalized sizing information across independent systems securely and efficiently. Claim 5 recites additional elements that accomplish this. Specifically, the claim requires that personalized size parameter information be extracted from the character string or the customized data item. Furthermore, claim 5 requires a technical authentication sequence whereby the customer terminal provides credentials to a third-party website, the third-party server performs verification, and only upon successful verification transmits the personalized size data back to the e-commerce website for display and confirmation. These steps represent improvements in secure data transfer, cross- platform interoperability, and automated industrial manufacturing…. Therefore, the claimed elements facilitate and secure communication across multiple systems, enabling the client's customized parameter information to be shared securely and efficiently among the e-commerce website, the third-party server, and the client terminal. Thus, claim 5 ensures that the alleged exception is integrated into a practical application rather than merely reciting an abstract concept.
While the claims may set forth a manner of providing secure information between systems, the manner of providing such security lies in existing technology. The recited authentication processes are not purported to be invented by applicant, but merely represents generic use of a login system using ID and password to provide the purported security. Thus, the claims do not set forth an invention that solves a technological problem. Rather, they recite existing solutions to a technical problem, and apply such solutions to a specific commercial application. With regard to applicant’s assertion of technical improvements, the claims do not set forth any steps that provide improvements to “secure data transfer, cross-platform interoperability, and automated industrial manufacturing”. Accordingly, such argument amounts to a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further asserts:
Thirdly, even assuming that claim 5 does not integrate into a practical application, which Applicant does not concede, claim 5 nonetheless recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B….Claim 5 recites limitations that are not well-understood or routine. The claim requires extracting personalized size information from a character string of a name of an order product, or a customized data item in an order record, which are digital, standardized, machine-readable, and can be securely transmitted and automatically processed across multiple systems.
Nothing in the claims or the specification limits either the character string of a name of an order product or a customized data item in an order record to be “digital, standardized, machine-readable”, or describes how such data is “automatically processed across multiple systems”. Therefore, applicant is asserting some manner of technological application that is not reflected int eh claimed invention or the disclosure. Extracting a character string from the name of an order, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is merely an abstract act of reading. Such an act does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, at least because it amounts to an abstract act in itself.
Applicant further asserts:
It also requires transmitting personalized size information only upon successful verification by a third-party server, and displaying the verified parameters for customer confirmation at the customer terminal after a verification step. These coordinated technical operations across an e-commerce website, supplier terminal, and customer terminal are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Claim 5 provides a structured and secure computer-implemented method that achieves reliable, scalable, and automated handling of personalized size information for industrialized customized production.
For example, as described in paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and of the specification, the claimed elements enable secure and efficient communication among the e-commerce website, the third-party server, and the client terminal, allowing the client's customized parameter information to be shared safely across different systems. By using the third-party website for user authentication through an ID and password, the system ensures that only verified users can access and link their personal size information to various e-commerce platforms. This avoids repeated data entry and protects personal information during data exchange. In addition, by merging the personal size customization parameters into a character string used as part of the product name or order record, the system allows suppliers and manufacturers to automatically extract and apply these parameters for production. These claimed elements improve data processing efficiency, reduce errors, and support large-scale customized manufacturing. Overall, claim 5 enhances both the security and interoperability of personalized data sharing across multiple platforms. Accordingly, claim 5 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.
As noted above, the verification process set forth in the claims recite existing solutions to a technical problem, and apply such solutions to a specific commercial application. Using a login ID and password to secure data transmitted across multiple systems is the most basic and well-known manner of providing data security. Utilizing this manner of data security represents merely applying the abstract idea to existing technology in order to leverage the inherent advantages of the technology, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts:
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 5 does not merely recite sales activities such as structuring a sales force, using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of client visits, or optimizing sales offers, which are the sales activity examples identified by the USPTO. Instead, claim 5 addresses a specific technical problem in information technology, namely that existing commercial websites do not provide a system capable of securely and efficiently transmitting personalized customization data across independent systems, and therefore cannot enable consumers to purchase tailor-made products online due to the lack of interoperability for personalized data transmission. The claimed method provides technological improvements to software and communication architectures by enabling the secure and efficient input, exchange, transfer, and extraction of personalized customization data across an e-commerce website, a supplier terminal, a client terminal, and a third-party database. The features of claim 5, including extracting personalized size data from a character string or customized order record, performing secure credential verification by a third-party server, transmitting verified size data, and executing automated manufacturing processes, represent concrete technical enhancements to IT infrastructure for secure and interoperable data handling. As a result, claim 5 significantly improves communication among multiple systems, thereby reducing return rates caused by size mismatches, lowering production and logistics costs, and increasing overall consumer satisfaction in online customized apparel purchases. Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to a technological improvement rather than to a fundamental sales activity.
As noted repeatedly above, applicant’s claims merely leverage existing technologies in the context of a tailor-made product sales environment, in order to provide the inherent advantages of that technologies. Applicant has not invented any of the technological processes involved, but has invented the commercial processes and applied such processes to known technology. Applicant clearly sets forth the problem sought to be solved in the disclosure (see [0003]): “Due to the uniqueness of each individual's figure, there is a deviation between personal body size and the national standard or the fixed size of the merchant. How to enable consumers to purchase tailor-made products on the Internet according to their own body specifications has become a technical problem to be overcome by related clothing brands and e-commerce websites.” While that portion of the disclosure purports to be a technical problem, it is in fact a commercial problem. “Deviation between personal body size and the national standard or the fixed size of the merchant” is completely independent of any technology, and is instead related to commercial considerations. Applicant has merely applied generic technology to solve this commercial problem via inherent advantages provided by the internet (such as central data storage and remote communication). There is no judicial precedence for leveraging existing technological advantages to solve a commercial problem rendering an otherwise ineligible claim eligible. Applicant’s failure to describe any technical detail in the disclosure as to the various technologies and systems used in solving the purported problem is a strong indication that such technical detail is not important to the inventive concept.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688