DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 15 submitted on 02/18/2026 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 4, and 15 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 have been cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic benefit. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 63/042,538, filed on 06/22/2020.
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent application No. KR2021/007795, filed on 06/22/2021.
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, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 are directed to a machine and claim 15 is directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
an image of a user;
identify the user based on the captured image;
input the captured image configured to extract user attributes and style attributes of the user, wherein the user attributes include personal attributes, physical attributes, color attributes, clothing attributes, and garment attributes of the user, and wherein the style attributes of the user include at least one of attributes of clothes worn currently by the user and attributes of accessories worn currently by the user, and wherein the attributes of the clothes and the attributes of the accessories include at least one of color, texture, fabric, size, a sleeve type, a sleeve length, a pocket, and a neckline;
configure a priority between the personal attributes, physical attributes, color attributes, clothing attributes, and garment attributes of the identified user according to a preset priority order, wherein the personal attributes is assigned a first priority, the physical attributes is assigned a second priority, the color attributes is assigned a third priority, the clothing attributes is assigned a fourth priority, and the garment attributes is assigned a fifth priority;
receive a purchase history of the user;
analyze a preference of the user based on the purchase history of the user;
retrieve inventory history data;
provide personalized recommendations based on the personal attributes, physical attributes, color attributes, clothing attributes, and garment attributes, the configured priority, and analyzed preference based on the purchase history of the identified user, wherein each item included in the personalized recommendations is determined to be in the inventory history;
based on the identified user using the image captured, wherein the according to the user attributes and style attributes of the user extracted and wherein a plurality of items included in the personalized recommendations that are determined to be in the inventory history are concurrently displayed to be applied;
detect a non-touch gesture made by the user, via images captured, for selecting one of the plurality of items included in the personalized recommendations applied;
transmit, information for initiating a payment process of the selected item to be purchased among the personalized recommendations; and
display information on the payment process for purchase of the selected item.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that it recites a commercial interaction, see ¶¶0002-0005. Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1 and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements that are bolded:
A smart window display, comprising:
a display;
a camera configured to capture an image of a user, wherein the camera is detachable from the smart window display;
a hardware communication transceiver configured to wirelessly communicate with a mobile phone of the user and a server computer; and a controller configured to:
identify the user based on the captured image;
input the captured image to an artificial neural network configured to extract user attributes and style attributes of the user, wherein the user attributes include personal attributes, physical attributes, color attributes, clothing attributes, and garment attributes of the user, and wherein the style attributes of the user include at least one of attributes of clothes worn currently by the user and attributes of accessories worn currently by the user, and wherein the attributes of the clothes and the attributes of the accessories include at least one of color, texture, fabric, size, a sleeve type, a sleeve length, a pocket, and a neckline;
configure a priority between the personal attributes, physical attributes, color attributes, clothing attributes, and garment attributes of the identified user according to a preset priority order, wherein the personal attributes is assigned a first priority, the physical attributes is assigned a second priority, the color attributes is assigned a third priority, the clothing attributes is assigned a fourth priority, and the garment attributes is assigned a fifth priority;
establish a first wireless connection with the mobile phone of the user via Bluetooth connection;
receive a purchase history of the user from the mobile phone through the first wireless connection;
analyze a preference of the user of the external device based on the purchase history of the user received from the mobile phone;
retrieve inventory history data from the server computer associated with a store management system through the communication interface via a second wireless connection;
provide personalized recommendations based on the personal attributes, physical attributes, color attributes, clothing attributes, and garment attributes, the configured priority, and analyzed preference based on the purchase history of the identified user, wherein each item included in the personalized recommendations is determined to be in the inventory history;
generate and display a virtual avatar based on the identified user using the image captured via the camera, wherein the virtual avatar is generated according to the user attributes and style attributes of the user extracted using the artificial neural network and wherein a plurality of items included in the personalized recommendations that are determined to be in the inventory history are concurrently displayed to be applied to the virtual avatar;
detect a non-touch gesture made by the user, via images captured by the camera, for selecting one of the plurality of items included in the personalized recommendations applied to the virtual avatar;
transmit to the server, via the second wireless connection, information for initiating a payment process of the selected item to be purchased among the personalized recommendations; and
display information on the payment process for purchase of the selected item on the display.
Claims 15 includes the same additional elements as claim 1.
The additional elements recited in claims 1 and 15 merely invoke such elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of virtual avatars and smart displays (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see ¶¶0007-0020 and ¶0047).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, claims 1 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above, while the recitation of the additional elements in independent claims 1 and 15 are acknowledged, claims 1 and 15 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 and 15 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1 and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 4, 7, and 13 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 4, 7, and 13 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1 and 15 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 15. Claims 4, 7, and 13 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 4, 7, and 13 are ineligible.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims recite additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claims 1 and 15: guide window (claim 10). However, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 10 are ineligible.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
The claims are allowable over the prior art for substantially the same reasons as those discussed in the Office action dated 11/18/2025. For further discussion see that office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-13 of the remarks filed 02/18/2026, with respect to the previous 35
USC § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 of the remarks that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, with respect to Applicant's assertion the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the MPEP enumerates groupings of abstract ideas, thereby synthesizing the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination. See MPEP 2106.04. Among the enumerated groupings is the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. With respect to the claims, the examiner notes that the additional elements are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The amendments further recite limitations such as identify the user based on the captured image, retrieve inventory history data, using the image captured, wherein according to the user attributes and style attributes of the user extracted and wherein a plurality of items included in the personalized recommendations that are determined to be in the inventory history are concurrently displayed to be applied, detect a non-touch gesture made by the user, via images captured, for selecting one of the plurality of items included in the personalized recommendations applied, display information on the payment process for purchase of the selected item. These amendments represent certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant's specification recites that the present invention is designed to give shoppers advice on product styles (see instant specification ¶¶0002-0003). In sum, the claims are directed towards product recommendations, which amounts to sales activity.
Applicant claims on page 8 of the remarks that the amended claims should be patent eligible and cites to USPTO Example 2 for support. Examiner disagrees with the applicant that the presently recited claims are similar to USPTO Example 2. USPTO Example 2 was not directed to a judicial exception. Example 2 was rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specific to the realm of computer networks. Unlike USPTO Example 2, the present claims recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas as noted previously. Furthermore, the presently claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technological field and the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant argues on pages 9-11 of the remarks that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP sets forth, in Step 2A Prong Two, that a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole "integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception." The evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use 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 judicial exception.' In the instant case, the claims include additional elements such as a smart display, comprising: a display; a camera configured to capture, wherein the camera is detachable from the smart window display; a hardware communication transceiver configured to wirelessly communicate with a mobile phone of the user and a server computer; and a controller configured to: to an artificial neural network; establish a first wireless connection with the mobile phone of the user via Bluetooth connection; from the mobile phone through the first wireless connection; of the external device received from the mobile phone; from the server computer associated with a store management system through the communication interface via a second wireless connection; generate and display a virtual avatar via the camera, virtual avatar is generated using the artificial neural network to the virtual avatar; by the camera, to the virtual avatar; to the server, via the second wireless connection, on the display. While these elements are recited, they are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of providing style recommendations based on analysis in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. Applicant's disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements provide a technical improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using the computing components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Furthermore, “detecting a non-touch gesture made by the user via images captured for selecting one of the plurality of displayed items,” and the payment initiation being triggered based on the detected gesture are also part of the abstract idea and their mere application on a “detachable camera” does not overcome the rejection.
Applicant claims on page 10 of the remarks that the amended claims should be patent eligible and cites to USPTO Example 42 for support. Examiner disagrees with the applicant that the presently recited claims are similar to USPTO Example 42. In claim 1 of USPTO Example 42, the additional elements recited a specific improvement over prior art systems by converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users (i.e., a technical solution to a technical problem) and the specification identified the technical problem and explained the technical solution. Unlike claim 1 of USPTO Example 42, the presently claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field and the Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Extracting user attributes and style attributes of the user identified; configuring a priority between the personal attributes, physical attributes, color attributes, clothing attributes, and garment attributes of the identified user; providing personalized recommendations while constraining the recommendations using received purchase history information, preferences of the user, and inventory history; generating based on the identified user using the captured image according to user attributes extracted limited to items which are confirmed to be in an inventory history; displaying based on the user; detecting a non-touch user gesture based on images captured for selecting one of the items included in the displayed recommendations; and initiating a payment process in response to the gesture detected are directed to the abstract idea. The mere application of the abstract idea on generic components which are recited at a high level of generality does not overcome the rejection. The components of a “detachable camera,” an “artificial neural network,” a “store management system,” a “virtual avatar,” “using an AI neural network,” are described at a high level and as generic in ¶¶0047-0058, ¶0151, ¶0171 and Fig. 2 of the instant specification.
Applicant argues on pages 11-13 of the remarks that the claims are patent eligible because they "amount to significantly more than a mere abstract idea implemented on generic computer systems.” The Examiner disagrees. One consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Evaluation of this consideration includes evaluating whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Cases have found that additional elements are more than "apply it" or are not "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicant's claims provide no similar technological solution to a technological problem. Rather, the claims at issue only merely recite the abstract idea of providing personalized recommendations based on user attributes on a set of generic computer components. For example, Applicant's claims merely recite steps of providing personalized recommendations based on user attributes with generic computer components being recited in a generic manner. The specificity of the claims is directed toward the abstract idea of providing personalized recommendations based on user attributes and not toward any technology, and accordingly, is insufficient to provide significantly more. While additional elements are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner and merely perform generic functions. Applicant's disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality. As such, the claims represent mere instructions to apply an abstract idea to a general-purpose computer.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 and 15 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Applicant argues on page 12 of the remarks that the amended claims include an inventive concept and cites Bascom. While Applicant argues the combination of the various elements that are claimed in the present claims provide a particular, practical application of the alleged abstract idea similar to the eligible claims in Bascom, Examiner disagrees. Unlike the claimed invention in Bascom, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims do not pertain to an “improvement” to the functioning of a computer or to another technology (see MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a)). In Bascom the inventive concept provided improvement in internet technology by the non-conventional and non- generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. Specifically, the Federal Circuit identified that the Bascom patent describes how the claims particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content, and was therefore considered an improvement to an existing technological process. The instant claims which recite providing personalized recommendations based on user attributes are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the invention is directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained.
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 AHOORA LADONI whose email is Ahoora.Ladoni@uspto.gov and telephone number is (703) 756-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900–1700 ET.
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.
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/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.
/AHOORA LADONI/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 5/28/2026
Prosecution Insights