Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 2/6/2026. Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-7 have been amended. The prior art rejections and claim objections have been overcome by amendment.
Applicant is invited to request a telephonic interview prior to next response.
Claim Rejection - 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, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1, 3-6 are directed to a machine and claim 7 is directed to a process. Therefore, claims 1, 3-7 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1 & 7 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
storing data in a storage, including:
user information input by a user,
product information for a plurality of products,
a plurality of simulation conditions, and
learning data for training simulations, said learning data including simulating data associated with a set of physical characteristics of at least one user and of said plurality of products;
said user information acquisition means acquiring from the storage user information stored therein of a user;
said product information acquisition means acquiring from the storage product information stored theremin of at least one product;
said simulation condition setting means acquiring from the storage at least one simulation condition stored therein and setting said at least one simulation condition;
said simulator means simulates, in accordance with said user information acquired by said user information acquisition means, said product information acquired by said product information acquisition means, and said simulation condition set by said simulation condition setting means, at least one situation in which said user uses said at least one product, and to generate a simulation result reflecting a prediction of changes to at least one physical characteristic of said at least one product caused by interaction with said user for a predetermined duration of time, wherein at least one change of said changes to said at least one physical characteristic includes degradation of said at least one product over said predetermined duration of time dependent upon use of said at least one product;
said simulation result presentation means presenting said simulation result generated by said simulator means to said user, said simulation result reflecting said prediction of changes of said at least one physical characteristic and a time interval for said changes to occur.
The above limitations recite the concept of product analysis. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1 and 7 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
a system comprising a control node and at least one user terminal node connected to said control node through a communication channel, wherein said control node is a computer including a CPU, a storage device, a communication interface, and input/output interface, said CPU configured as units
data inputted through said at least one user terminal node
the units being operatively coupled to the storage device and to each other and configured to perform steps
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 3-6 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. Therefore the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
a system comprising a control node and at least one user terminal node connected to said control node through a communication channel, wherein said control node is a computer including a CPU, a storage device, a communication interface, and input/output interface, said CPU configured as units
data inputted through said at least one user terminal node
the units being operatively coupled to the storage device and to each other and configured to perform steps
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable over Prior Art of Record
Claims 1 and 3-7 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds [e.g. 35 USC §101] as discussed above. The combination of elements of the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Claims 1 and 3-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC §101 as set forth in this Office Action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
In the present application, claims 1 and 3-7 are allowable over prior art. The most related prior art patent of record is Matts et al (US 20180276869 A1), hereinafter Matts, Glasgow et al (US20160165989A1), Tepmongkol et al (US20150324103A1), and References U-V (NPL – see attached).
Matts teaches a remote computing device that performs operations [0036], including receiving and storing user data, including an image and demographic data [0034, 0075-0076], storing product efficacy models for skin products [0083, 0033], simulating the passing of time with the product’s effect on the user for a predetermined period [0035], such as creating an animation showing aging or de-aging with and without use of the product [0073], and presenting results to the user [0035].
Glasgow et al (US20160165989A1) teaches systems for simulation damage “wear patterns” on a garment, based on user and garment & motion characteristics, over a period of time; and Tepmongkol et al (US20150324103A1) teaches systems for simulating weather and motion conditions on a user’s outfit of both clothing & “makeup.”
References U & V (NPL – see attached) discuss an online clothing virtual fitting room with capabilities to simulate wind and rain conditions, and render their effects on a user avatar, along with user-motions’ effects thereon.
However, each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious at least the limitations of: said simulator unit being operatively coupled to said simulation condition setting unit and configured to simulate, in accordance with said user information acquired by said user information acquisition unit, said product information acquired by said product information acquisition unit, and said simulation condition set by said simulation condition setting unit, at least one situation in which said user uses said at least one product, and to generate a simulation result reflecting a prediction of changes to at least one physical characteristic of said at least one product caused by interaction with said user for a predetermined duration of time, wherein at least one change of said changes to said at least one physical characteristic includes degradation of said at least one product over said predetermined duration of time dependent upon use of said at least one product; said simulation result presentation unit being operatively coupled to said simulator unit and configured to present said simulation result generated by said simulator unit to said user, said simulation result reflecting said prediction of changes of said at least one physical characteristic and a time interval for said changes to occur.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of the cited references, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
The references, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable over prior art (though rejected under 35 USC §101) as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues that limitation of “said simulator unit…configured to simulate…at least one situation in which said user uses said at least one product, and to generate a simulate result reflecting a prediction of changes to…said at least one product caused by interaction with said user for a predetermined period of time…” as claimed is “not part of” an abstract idea, but is instead “additional features related to the technological process of simulating changes in an object’s physical characteristics over time.” Applicant contends that “the recited functions of the simulation unit require consideration without even addressing whether the system as a whole is directed to commercial activity,” and that “when considered as additional elements, the emphasized limitations recite” an improvement to a technology or technical field, namely that “the recited simulation features improve on current systems by simulating degradation of an object due to interactions over a predetermined duration of time rather than just immediate changes.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the step of simulating a prediction of changes based on an interaction of a product with a user for a predetermined period of time, with reference to a condition, is part of the abstract idea itself, which amounts to a concept of product analysis and falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that it recites commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. The computer-related additional elements of the claims are recited at a high level of generality and provide only a general linking to computer technology, being invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, and its process for analyzing products and predicting degradation/damage in a formulaic way, to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. At best, these generic computer components offer only the improved speed or efficiency inherent to a general purpose computer, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application [MPEP 2106.05(a)].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS JOSEPH SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689