DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed December 16, 2025. Claim 19 has been withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-15, and 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 13, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
(Note: This is not a rejection)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This includes claims 1 and 3-16, which recite the word “means” coupled to functional language, the word means not modified by sufficient structure (i.e. prongs A-C above are met).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2012/0030060 A1), in view of Masuko (US 2014/0108202 A1), and further in view of Uchiyama (US 2014/0025346 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Lu discloses a wearable acquisition system comprising:
biological information acquisition means for acquiring subject biological information indicating biological information of an estimation subject (Lu: Figure 1, paragraph [0023] - the example system depicted in FIG. 1 includes consumer registration controller 101, consumer entered attributes data 102);
storage means for storing a plurality of pieces of biological information each associated with a wearable-item size indicating a size of a wearable item worn by the estimation subject (Lu: Figure 1, paragraph [0023] - the example system depicted in FIG. 1 includes consumer registration controller 101, consumer entered attributes data 102, my closet controller 103);
wearable-item size estimation means for estimating the wearable-item size for the estimation subject based on the subject biological information acquired by the biological information acquisition means via a communication connection and on the plurality of pieces of biological information stored in the storage means (Lu: Figure 1, paragraph [0033] - In the example system shown, fit recommendation controller 110 receives a fit recommendation request 100 and generates a size recommendation 120);
wherein the storage means stores the plurality of pieces of biological information each associated with the wearable-item size as a database, and the database is sequentially updated by addition of a new piece of biological information associated with the wearable-item size (Lu: paragraph [0032] - Consumer fit profile storage facility 109 stores information collected about a consumer's preferences, identified measurements, closet, fit survey, product returns information, etc. by consumer registration controller 101, my closet controller 103, consumer returns controller 104 and consumer post-sales fit survey controller 105. Although depicted in FIG. 1 as a single repository, consumer fit profiles storage facility 109 may store data in any suitable number of repositories, as embodiments of the invention are not limited in this respect, paragraph [0030] - Garment technical attributes storage facility 107 stores technical dimension data on certain sizes of items, paragraph [0042] - As noted above, a fit model may be updated for any suitable number of dimensions, such as each key dimension identified in act 208).
Lu does not expressly disclose wherein the wearable-item size estimation means estimates the wearable-item size for the estimation subject based on the wearable-item size corresponding to the neighborhood biological information of the subject biological information extracted from biological information of other individuals in the plurality of pieces of biological information stored in the storage means. Masuko discloses:
wherein the wearable-item size estimation means estimates the wearable-item size for the estimation subject based on the wearable-item size corresponding to the neighborhood biological information of the subject biological information extracted from biological information of other individuals in the plurality of pieces of biological information stored in the storage means (Masuko: paragraph [0027] - On the basis of the size of the first item for sale purchased by the request user and the size of the second item for sale purchased by the other user, for example, it is possible to determine whether the body size of the request user and the body size of the other user are similar to each other and/or to determine the size relationship between the body size of the request user and the body size of the other user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and apparatus of Lu to have included wherein the wearable-item size estimation means estimates the wearable-item size for the estimation subject based on the wearable-item size corresponding to the neighborhood biological information of the subject biological information extracted from biological information of other individuals in the plurality of pieces of biological information stored in the storage means, as taught by Masuko because it would make size selection easier (Masuko: paragraph [0002]).
The combination of Lu and Masuko does not disclose c) using a handheld device to post information representative of said goods to be sold on at least one of: said web site, and any Internet site. However, Uchiyama teaches:
subject biological information acquired by the biological information acquisition means via a communication connection (Uchiyama: paragraph [0147] - The biometric information measured by the body composition meter here may be input manually into the information processing apparatus, but may be input to the information processing apparatus via existing communication devices or storage media);
wherein the subject biological information is biological information measured by a body composition analyzer that measures body composition based on bioimpedance of the estimation subject (Uchiyama: In the invention, the biometric information includes (1) biometric information acquired by measuring the user directly by the biometric apparatus (mainly including the body weight and the biometric impedance or the like));
wherein the biological information is at least one of fat percentage, fat mass, fat-free mass, muscle mass, visceral fat mass, visceral fat level, visceral fat area, subcutaneous fat mass, basal metabolic expenditure, bone mass, body water percentage, BMI, intracellular fluid volume, and extracellular fluid volume (Uchiyama: paragraph [0043] - biometric information acquired by calculating the biometric information by applying a predetermined regression formula thereto (mainly including the fat percentage, the fat mass, the lean body mass, the muscle mass, the visceral fat mass, the visceral fat level, the visceral fat area, the subcutaneous fat mass, the amount of basal metabolism, the bone mass, the body moisture percentage, the BMI (Body Mass Index), the intercellular fluid volume, and the extracellular fluid volume or the like of the entire body and of the respective body parts)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Lu and Masuko, in the apparatus and method for using a handheld device to post information representative of said goods, as taught by Uchiyama since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would provide biometric information on the entire body (Uchiyama: paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lu further discloses appropriateness calculation means for calculating appropriateness of the wearable-item size estimated by the wearable-item size estimation means for the estimation subject (Lu: paragraph [0037] - n some embodiments, initializing a new profile for the consumer may involve generating an indication of an even probability that any apparel dimension will suit the consumer, indicating that not enough information has been collected to predict that any value for a dimension will fit the consumer, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Lu further discloses wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a probability that the wearable-item size estimated by the wearable-item size estimation means is the wearable-item size for the estimation subject based on the plurality of pieces of biological information stored in the storage means (Lu: paragraph [0037] - n some embodiments, initializing a new profile for the consumer may involve generating an indication of an even probability that any apparel dimension will suit the consumer, indicating that not enough information has been collected to predict that any value for a dimension will fit the consumer, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Lu further discloses wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates the probability from a ratio or distribution of the wearable-item size associated with pieces of biological information that are among the plurality of pieces of biological information stored in the storage means and are included in a predetermined range defined with respect to the subject biological information (Lu: paragraph [0017] - In Table 2, the technical dimension data is specified as a range, since some product manufacturers tolerate a range of dimensions in the manufacturing process).
Regarding claim 13, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lu further discloses wherein the wearable-item size for the estimation subject estimated by the wearable-item size estimation means is displayed on image display means (Lu: Figure 1 - 120, paragraph [0057] - and the output device(s) 501 display(s) or transmit(s) information to a user or machine (e.g., a liquid crystal display)).
Regarding claim 15, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lu further discloses wherein the wearable item is clothes of the estimation subject (Lu: paragraph [0002] - This invention relates to determining a likelihood that an item, such as an item of apparel or shoes, will suit a consumer based at least in part on the consumer's previous experiences with one or more other items).
Claims 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2012/0030060 A1), in view of Masuko (US 2014/0108202 A1), in view of Uchiyama (US 2014/0025346 A1), and further in view of Mazmanyan (US 2011/0295711 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. The combination of Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama does not disclose wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information. However, Mazmanyan teaches wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information (Mazmanyan: paragraph [0048] - Buying may be organized in a way that at the next purchase the buyer will be asked to fill in a Customer Satisfaction Form containing fields where the buyer should indicate fit assessments given to the already purchased apparel or should indicate if there is any difference between the fit assessments predicted by the apparel fit advisory service for the previous purchases and the respective actual fit assessments given by the buyer after receiving them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama, in the apparatus and method wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information, as taught by Mazmanyan since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it assist in providing customer satisfaction (Mazmanyan: paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. The combination of Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama does not disclose wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information. However, Mazmanyan teaches wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information (Mazmanyan: paragraph [0048] - Buying may be organized in a way that at the next purchase the buyer will be asked to fill in a Customer Satisfaction Form containing fields where the buyer should indicate fit assessments given to the already purchased apparel or should indicate if there is any difference between the fit assessments predicted by the apparel fit advisory service for the previous purchases and the respective actual fit assessments given by the buyer after receiving them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama, in the apparatus and method wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information, as taught by Mazmanyan since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it assist in providing customer satisfaction (Mazmanyan: paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. The combination of Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama does not disclose wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information. However, Mazmanyan teaches wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information (Mazmanyan: paragraph [0048] - Buying may be organized in a way that at the next purchase the buyer will be asked to fill in a Customer Satisfaction Form containing fields where the buyer should indicate fit assessments given to the already purchased apparel or should indicate if there is any difference between the fit assessments predicted by the apparel fit advisory service for the previous purchases and the respective actual fit assessments given by the buyer after receiving them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama, in the apparatus and method wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates as the appropriateness a correction index that is a difference between a representative value of the biological information for the wearable-item size estimated by the estimation means and the subject biological information or a difference between a representative value of measurements for the estimated wearable-item size and a measurement obtained from the subject biological information, as taught by Mazmanyan since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it assist in providing customer satisfaction (Mazmanyan: paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Lu, Masuko, Uchiyama, and Mazmanyan teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Lu further discloses wherein the appropriateness calculation means calculates a probability that the wearable-item size estimated by the wearable-item size estimation means is the wearable-item size for the estimation subject based on the plurality of pieces of biological information stored in the storage means, and calculates the representative value based on the biological information and the probability (Lu: paragraph [0037] - n some embodiments, initializing a new profile for the consumer may involve generating an indication of an even probability that any apparel dimension will suit the consumer, indicating that not enough information has been collected to predict that any value for a dimension will fit the consumer, paragraph [0041]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2012/0030060 A1) ), in view of Masuko (US 2014/0108202 A1), in view of Uchiyama (US 2014/0025346 A1), and further in in view of Bright (US 2011/0099122 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. The combination of Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama does not disclose size-change time estimation means for estimating a time when the wearable- item size for the estimation subject changes, based on the subject biological information acquired before and the subject biological information acquired newly. However, Bright teaches size-change time estimation means for estimating a time when the wearable- item size for the estimation subject changes, based on the subject biological information acquired before and the subject biological information acquired newly (Bright: paragraph [0056] - Changes may occur, for example, as the consumer edits his/her profile to describe their body at a given time, since many consumers' bodies may change shape over time (e.g., due to losing and gaining weight, growing, etc.). Using different consumer profiles may enable improved fit predictions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Lu, Masuko, and Uchiyama, in the apparatus and method size-change time estimation means for estimating a time when the wearable- item size for the estimation subject changes, based on the subject biological information acquired before and the subject biological information acquired newly, as taught by Bright since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because changes may occur to the customers body (Bright: paragraph [0056]).
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 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 KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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 (571) 272-6763. 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688