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
Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-19, and 21 have been examined in this Final Rejection. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added.
Priority
Application 18/374,324 was filed 09/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025 was filed after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, and 13 recite “the training the machine” and should recite “the training of the machine”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9-15, and 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-19, and 21 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method, system and computing device for determining if footwear is authentic based on image data. For Claims 1, 10, and 19 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
receiving a request to authenticate footwear, the request including a brand, model, and size of the footwear to be authenticated;
generating a pressure distribution image for the footwear, the pressure distribution image comprising a pressure distribution represented by colors that is generated by […] apply[ing] a predetermined force to the footwear;
determining whether the footwear is a same size as an authentic version of the footwear;
based on the footwear being a different size, resizing the pressure distribution image for the footwear to correspond to a size of the authentic version of the footwear;
analyzing, […], the pressure distribution image for the footwear by comparing the pressure distribution image for the footwear to a pressure distribution image of the authentic version of the footwear;
based on the analyzing, determining whether the pressure distribution image for the footwear is within an authenticity threshold of the pressure distribution image of the authentic version of the footwear; and
based on the pressure distribution image for the footwear being within the authenticity threshold, causing presentation of an indication of authenticity of the footwear, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person's interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 19 recites the additional elements of an image analysis system (Claims 1), pressure measurement machine having an apparatus with a plurality of sensors (Claim 1, 10, and 19), processor (Claims 10, and 19), memory (Claims 10, and 19), a machine-storage medium (Claim 19), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an image analysis system (Claims 1, 10, and 19), pressure measurement machine having an apparatus with a plurality of sensors (Claim 1, 10, and 19), processor (Claims 10, and 19), memory (Claims 10, and 19), a machine-storage medium (Claim 19), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, 18 and 21 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 as discussed above.
Claim(s) 5 & 14 merely describe(s) the pressure distribution image comprising a pressure distribution heatmap or pedobarographic measurement image generated based on a force applied to the footwear Claim(s) 9 & 18 merely describes causing a presentation of the indication of authenticity by displaying a badge on a listing for the footwear. Claim(s) 21 merely describes the resizing comprising applying an image processing algorithm selected from the group consisting of nearest neighbor interpolation and bilinear interpolation to adjust spatial dimensions of the pressure distribution image. Therefore claims 5, 9, 14, 18, and 21 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 11-13, and 15 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 10, and 19. In addition, it recites the additional elements of a machine learning model, training a machine learning model, pressure measurement machine, plurality of sensors, and a video. The machine learning model, training a machine learning model, pressure measurement machine, and video are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, 18 and 21 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
Ruvini (US20230079170) teaches the request including a brand, model, and size of the footwear to be authenticated (Ruvini Par. 0032, and Par. 0059).
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features of determining whether the footwear to be authenticated is a same size as the authentic version of the footwear and based on the footwear being a different size, resizing the pressure distribution image of the footwear to correspond to a size of the authentic version of the footwear, and wherein training the machine learning model includes training on a year for each of the authentic footwear; and the analyzing is based in part on a year of the item.
Therefore, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed render claims 1, 10, and 19 allowable over the prior art. Dependent claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, 18 and 21 are also allowable over the prior art due to their dependencies on claims 1, 10, and 19.
A Non-Patent Literature search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered, and are persuasive in part. The 101 Rejection to Claim 19 in regards to signal per se is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to organizing human activity, managing personal behavior, or following rules or instructions. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to receive a request to authenticate footwear with a brand, model, and size to be authenticated, generate a pressure distribution image for the footwear comprising colors from a predetermined force of the footwear, determine whether the footwear is a same size as an authentic version of the footwear based on the footwear being a different size, resizing the pressure distribution image for the footwear to correspond to a size of the authentic version of the footwear, analyze the pressure distribution image for the footwear by comparing the pressure distribution image for the footwear to a pressure distribution image of the authentic version, from the analyzing determining if the pressure distribution image for the footwear is within an authenticity threshold of the pressure distribution image of the authentic version of the footwear and based on the pressure distribution image for the footwear being within the authenticity threshold cause a presentation of an indication of authenticity of the footwear. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to ensure authenticity of footwear using pressure distribution analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem of authentication of footwear in the face of increasingly sophisticated counterfeiting, by using a pressure measurement machine equipped with a plurality of sensors and applying a predetermined force. Applicant argues that this limitation represents a technical operation that transforms physical interactions into digital data by generating the pressure distribution image with specialized hardware, performing technical image processing (including resizing), and analyzing the resulting data using automated systems. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The generation of digital data, resizing of images, and use of an automated system that the Applicant argues does not recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined (computing system). The additional elements of the image analysis system, processor, memory, and machine-storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or another technology. The claimed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to capture or process the data, but rather use that technology as a tool to merely perform the abstract analysis (apply it). Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more since there is no technical architecture that would amount to a practical application/significantly more, only high-level instructions of authenticating footwear. The claim does not recite any technical improvement in image processing, sensor technology or computer operations, but rather uses the additional elements to perform the abstract concept of verifying authenticity. Further, the problem of resizing the image and authenticating the footwear was not a problem caused by the computer/processor/pressure measurement machine involved in the process. At best, the problem(s) described in the as-filed disclosure are business problems. Based on the updated rejection above and the response presented here, the 101 rejection holds.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments for incorporating the previous allowable subject matter into the independent claims.
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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights