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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 5-11 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 12-14 have been added, and are rejected.
Claims 3-4 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/3/206 regarding the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims such that they are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/3/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/3/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 9-10 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made to recite technical aspects of determining whether the foot growth of the user at a future age has ended, such as by reciting the technical aspects of statistical data including the technical aspect of the foot circumference of the aspect ratio of the foot circumference and length, and average foot size change amount. Further arguments are made that the claims recite an information providing device that outputs information based on a result of determining whether the foot growth of the foot of the user at the future age has ended.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims no longer recite sales and marketing activities as the sales activities were amended out of the claims, the claims recite mental processes, which includes observation and evaluation. Utilizing statistical data does not constitute a technical process. The claims as recited merely gather measurements and comparing the measured values to make a determination. Even if the claims recited more of the statistical process to determine the future foot sizes, it would merely be using mathematical concepts to extrapolate and predict the future values. There is no change in any technology or technical field, such as any particular technical device to measure the foot. The claims merely obtain a measurement and evaluate the information to make a determination. For example, the obtained measurements are merely compared to past data to make a determination based on past data showing a certain ratio indicates the end of growth. The information providing device is also recited with a very high level of generality, as merely comprising a processor to perform the steps of the abstract idea. The specification does not provide any further disclosure of the device, such as in specification paragraph [0060], which merely discloses that the device includes generic computing components, such as a processor, memory, and storage device to execute programs. Outputting information also does not constitute any technical activity, as it only represents showing some sort of information to a user. As such, the claims are directed to mental processes of observation and evaluation, and merely provide a general link to a computing environment.
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 1-2 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2 and 5-14 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 1-2 and 5-14 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.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for estimating foot sizes and growth at the future time. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including mental processes (e.g. observation, evaluation, etc.). 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.
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 2, 5-10, and 12-14 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 2, 5-10, and 12-14 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 2, 5-10, and 12-14 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2, 5-10, and 12-14 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 2, 5-10, and 12-14 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 2, 5-10, and 12-14 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2, 5-10, and 12-14 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 2, 5-10, and 12-14 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a restatement of reasons for subject matter over the prior art as previously indicated in the Office Action mailed on 9/12/2025:
Claims 1-2 and 5-14 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth above.
Claims 1-2 and 5-14 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons as set forth below.
Claim 1 recites the claims features of:
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;
The closes prior art was found to be as follows:
Sweitzer (US 20090094138 A1) discloses [0214] – “One method of correcting the predicted weight and height for the child would be to adjust the weight and height percentile assigned to the child, and thus adjust the future predicted sizes as well as the presently recommended size. Another method of adjusting the predicted weight and height of the child would be to adjust the rate of change predicted by the weight and height percentile tables or charts according to the particular child. Thus, if a child grows more slowly or more quickly than is predicted by the charts for their percentile, multiple data points of height and weight, as entered by the person responsible for the account, could be used to adjust the prediction and accommodate a quicker or slower growth rate”; Sweitzer: [0215] – “As such, the child's account would, at any date, provide recommended clothing sizes for the child for preferred brands, based on current actual body measurements as entered by the consumer responsible for the account. The system may also provide a recommended clothing or footwear size for the child based on the body measurements projected by the system using growth tables or charts”.
Oshima (US 20220192324 A1) discloses [0039] – “Where the non-conforming results are filtered out, results for length 44 and width 45 are compared to determine whether the resulting aspect ratio is within the preprogrammed range of possibility for a foot”. Notably, the measure of length vs width are not for determining a future foot size, but to confirm that the detected object is a foot.
Silverman (FR 2652488 A1) discloses “The method according to the invention for suitably fitting a young child comprises selecting shoes on the basis of measuring or evaluating the length of the child's foot, as well as measuring the circumference of the next foot. a generally circumferential line extending approximately parallel to a transverse axis of the forefoot, to determine the turn of the foot, as well as the selection of an insole of a suitable size, determined on the basis of the tour measured, which is intended to be inserted into the shoe”.
PTO-892 Reference U discloses analyzing statistical data of developing feet in children, including taking various measurements for the change of foot shape with age during childhood. A measurement of the arch index ratio is calculated based on various measurements of different sections of the foot. Notably, however, PTO-892 Reference U does not disclose a ratio of the length of the foot and the circumference to determine that growth has ended.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below note features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
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;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references 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 emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims 1 and 5-14 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
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: 7:30 - 5:00.
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 4/8/2026
Prosecution Insights