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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 02/02/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 13, and 17-18 are amended.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of any base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed to a machine.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: accumulate, for a plurality of samples, longitudinal data indicating a temporal change in foot size of one sample; ... store user data containing a gender, an age, and a past foot size of a prediction target person; ... store a product specification of shoes; ... predict, based on a current foot size of the prediction target person and the longitudinal data, a change in foot size of the prediction target person in a period from a current point in time to a future point in time; and ... display ... the prediction of the change in foot size of the prediction target person in the period from the current point in time to the future point in time, ... determine a recommended shoe product based on the product specification ... and the predicted change in foot size, generate ... a time-series diagram showing the past foot size and a prediction result of the change in foot seize of the prediction target person based on the predicted change in the foot size, ... including an image of the recommended shoe product ..., and the image ... being superimposed with the time-series diagram, and display.
These recited limitations recite the abstract idea of “predicting a change in foot size of a target person”, which sets forth a form of managing personal behavior, classified under certain methods of organizing human activity. These identified steps also recite a mental process because the accumulating, storing, predicting, and displaying can practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in Prong One.
In Step 2A, Prong Two Examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In the instant case, claim 1 recites additional elements including: an information notification device comprising: a longitudinal-data storage unit configured to accumulate; a user-data storage unit configured to store; a product-specification storage unit configured to store; a foot-size prediction unit configured to predict; and a notification processing unit configured to display, on a display unit ... and wherein the notification processing unit is configured to ... generate a graphical user interface ...the graphical user interface including an image of the recommended shoe product and a purchase button associated with a uniform resource locator of a website of an electronic commerce company ... and display the graphical user interface on the display unit.
The “information notification device” and “storage unit[s]” and “graphical user interface” thereof, are each recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions of storing and displaying data) which amounts to no more than mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The generation of a graphical user interface including a purchase button associated with a uniform resource locator of a website of an electronic commerce company merely indicates a technological environment (i.e. execution on a generic computer) in which to apply the judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h), “implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B” and “ limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea as it does not recite additional elements which integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f), “implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer”). Additionally, each of the claimed computer functions (“accumulating”, “storing”, and “displaying” data) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d), see electronic recordkeeping and storing and retrieving information in memory). Moreover the Specification demonstrates the generic nature of the display on page 7, lines 30-34 “To the display unit 11, a liquid crystal display ... can be applied, but a display device other than these may be applied”. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered individually and recite foot size prediction performed by a generic computer. Claim 1 is therefore ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-11 and 14-18 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 3-11 and 14-18 are also ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites additional elements including: display, when an operation of expressing participation in the event in performed on the display unit, a uniform resource locator of a website of an electronic commerce company. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the displayed URL of a website is used to apply a sales activity (i.e. providing a method for accessing a commerce company selling the recommended shoes) with a generic computer. URLs are within the existing capabilities of generic computers. As a combination, the claim generally links an abstract sales activity to a computer implementation. Accordingly, claim(s) 13 is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the additional features improve the function of the graphical user interface (GUI) in the field of automatic shoe recommendation technology, as the GUI is specifically designed to include the time-series diagram and images together or simultaneously in an overlapping manner”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. An example that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality includes: Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018). See MPEP 2106.05(a).
The instant claims recite instructions to generate a graphic user interface where the included shoe product image and purchase button are “superimposed” with a time-series diagram. However, similar to the Interval Licensing LLC example, the claims do not recite any limitations specifying how to achieve this desired result. Instead of reciting a particular way to superimpose images, this limitation provides no more than mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Applicant further argues that amended claim 1 improves “the accuracy of shoe-fitting”, which is a technical improvement in the field of computer-aided product selection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Predicting a shoe size or improving the accuracy of shoe-fitting are business processes pre-dating computers, not improvements to technology. The use of a general purpose computer to automate the shoe size prediction does not transform the underlying abstract idea into a technological improvement.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner is maintaining the § 101 rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-18.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claim 1 has been amended to include the features recited in claim 2, which was indicated as reciting allowable subject matter in the Office Action on 09/15/2025. The prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-18 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Price C, Haley M, Williams A, Nester C, Morrison SC (NPL Reference U) is directed to an appraisal of web-based resources about measurement and fit of children’s footwear, focusing specifically on readability, usability and quality.
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 KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights