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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5-11, and 14 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 2-4 and 12-13 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/10/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.S 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/10/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant cites specification paragraphs [0028-0029] which disclose the determining that the foot growth has ended by a ratio of foot circumference and foot length, and comparing that ratio to a threshold, tracking if the ratio has been increasing or decreasing at a certain age, and whether conditions have been satisfied to conclude the growth has ended. Such subject matter has been amended into the claims, and it is argued that these provide improvements, and are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification does not disclose any improvements to any technology or technical field, but merely provide a method of measuring feet and comparing them to past data. Such activities are performable in the human mind, and do not require any particular equipment. Additionally, gathering and comparing data is not a technical endeavor, and determining whether foot growth has ended from measurements and past data and some defined conditions is an act of observation and evaluation. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
On pages 9-10, citation is made to Ex Parte Hannun disclosing steps that cannot be performed mentally, and even if they were, integrated the judicial exception into a practical application and included specific features designed to achieve an improved technological result. Applicant argues that the amended steps cannot be performed in the human mind, and improves the technology of footwear by reflecting the particular way in which the technical solution to the technical problem of selecting footwear for an adult being mismatched with that of a child.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The details of the present invention and the invention of Ex Parte Hannun are different. In Ex Parte Hannun, the claims included normalizing an input file, generating a jitter set of audio files, generating a set of spectrogram frames, obtaining predicted character probabilities from a trained neural network and decoding a transcription of the input audio using the predicted character probability outputs. Such features are computer-specific activities, and cannot be performed outside of computer technology. These steps utilized specific computer elements that are rooted in computer technology to achieve a technical result. In the present claims, such features are not recited, but the measuring and comparing of foot information. The claims merely recite obtaining various information of the user, and calculating and comparing the information to a threshold and some conditions, which is an act of observation and evaluation. These actions are all performable by a human without any particular equipment, and are performable in the human mind. Furthermore, selecting footwear for an adult being mismatched with that of a child does not represent any technical problem/solution, but a commercial problem. Offering a matching product to a user does not represent any technical activity, but is a sales activity of providing appropriate products for a user.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
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, 5-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 5-11, and 14 are directed to a shoe product information device, which is an apparatus. Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claims 1, 5-11, and 14 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of determining future shoe sizes for a user to recommend shoes that will fit at the future time:
statistical data on a change in foot size, the statistical data including, for each of a plurality of persons, an amount of change of foot size for a foot of a person from an age to a next age cross a plurality of ages, the foot size including a ratio of a foot circumference of the foot of the person to a foot length of the foot of the person;
obtain a current age of a user and a current foot size of the user, the current foot size of the user including a current ratio of a current foot length of the foot of the user to a current foot circumference of the foot of the user;
determine, based on the statistical data, an average foot size change amount of the amount of change of the foot size of the plurality of persons at the current age of the user to the next age;
determine a future foot size of the foot of the user at a future age based on the current foot size of the foot of the user and the average foot size change amount, the future foot size of the foot of the user including a future ratio of a future foot length of the foot of the user to a future foot circumference of the foot of the user;
determine whether foot growth of the foot of the user at the future age has ended based on the future foot size of the foot of the user and the future age;
output information based on a result of determining whether the foot growth of the foot of the user at the future age has ended;
wherein the information includes product information regarding shoe suitable for whether the future foot size of the user is that of a child whose foot growth has not ended or is that of an adult whose foot growth has ended;
the processor is configured to determine whether the foot growth of the foot of the user at the future age has ended based on whether the future ratio of the future foot length of the foot of the user to the future foot circumference of the foot of the user is greater than or equal to a preset threshold, whether the future age of the user is greater than or equal to a predetermined age, and whether a difference between the current ratio of the current foot length of the foot of the user to the current foot circumference of the foot of the user and the future ratio of the future foot length of the foot of the user to the future circumference is increasing or decreasing.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for estimating foot sizes and growth at the future time. These limitations amount to mental processes, including observation and evaluation. The claims are directed to maintaining past data of measurements of a plurality of users, obtaining current measurements of a user, and determining a future foot size based on the current measurements (see specification [0001] disclosing the goal of the invention in predicting a foot size and provide product information), which is a mental process. The limitations also amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including marketing or sales activities. The claims are directed to identifying a growth of the user’s feet to output information based on the result of the user’s foot growth determination, which is a sales activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
a memory;
a processor;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also 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 a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims a memory and processor, these elements are recited with a very high level of generalization. Paragraph [0060] of the Applicant’s specification discloses the device of the invention, which merely discloses including a processor and memory. There are no particular description of the processor or memory, the specification merely discloses that the device includes these components. As such, it is evident that these elements are any generic computing component that functions in a generic manner, and are not a particular device. The additional elements only serve to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim21 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 11 (method): Claim 11 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 11 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 5-10 and 14 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of estimating foot sizes and growth at the future time, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 5-10 and 14 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 5-10 and 14 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 5-10 and 14 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g., a URL (claim 10)); however, the additional elements of claims 5-10 and 14 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims 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 generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 5-10 and 14 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 5-10 and 14 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 5-10 and 14 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The claims have been indicated free of the prior are for the reasons as previously indicated in the Office Action mailed on 4/10/2026.
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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm EST.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 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.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights