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, 3-4, 6, 9-15,18-19 and 21-23 have been examined in this Non-Final Rejection. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-15,18-19 and 21-23 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 10-15, 19, and 21 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20 have been canceled. Claim(s) 22 and 23 are new.
Priority
Application 18/374,324 was filed 09/28/2023.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-4, 6, 9-15,18-19 and 21-23 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, 3-4, 6, 9-15,18-19 and 21-23 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 comprising a heatmap or pedobarographic measurement image in which a pressure distribution is represented by colors;
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, the resizing comprising applying an image processing algorithm to adjust spatial dimensions of the pressure distribution image;
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, the analyzing comprising applying the pressure distribution image […] including data derived from pressure distribution images of authentic and counterfeit 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.
The claimed concepts of receiving a request to authenticate footwear, generating an image, determining whether the footwear is the same size, analyzing by comparing images, determining if an image for the footwear is within an authenticity threshold, and presenting an indication of authenticity, is part of an overall authentication system. The concept of product authenticity to determine counterfeit products, is considered to be a method of reducing risk to a buyer, to ensure they are receiving what they think to be purchasing. The act of product verification to reduce the risk of counterfeit or fake products represents a certain method of organizing human activities, insuring that a product is what it is supposed to be and has not been tampered with. Product authentication is a commercial practice that is a risk mitigation method.
Also, determining whether the footwear is the same size as an authentic version of the footwear, analyzing an image by comparing images, and determining if an image is within a threshold, absent the recitation to machine learning and pressure measurement machine with sensors, can be done by a person mentally. The mental process category for abstract idea includes making evaluations or judgments or observations or opinions. The claimed invention is reciting the use of determining whether if the footwear is the same size as an authentic version of the footwear, and is fully capable of being performed by a person mentally. The claims are additionally taken to be a mental process that can be performed by a person who is analyzing footwear to determine authenticity. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea.
The claimed concepts of generating a pressure distribution image for the footwear comprising a heatmap or pedobarographic measurement image in which a pressure distribution is represented by colors, resizing comprising applying an image processing algorithm to adjust spatial dimensions of the pressure distribution image, and analyzing comprising applying the pressure distribution image to a machine learning model trained with training data including data derived from pressure distribution images of authentic and counterfeit footwear are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. The Examiner notes that “Mathematical Concepts” includes a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a numerical formula or equation it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes. (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), a pressure measurement machine having an artificial foot or similar apparatus with a plurality of pressure sensors that applies a predetermined force to the footwear (Claim 1, 10, and 19), a machine learning model trained with training data (Claims 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. Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of machine learning merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (machine learning). MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely "generally linking" the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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), a machine learning model trained with training data (Claims 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”). Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of machine learning merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (machine learning). MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely "generally linking" the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even when considered separately and as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As such claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 3-4, 6, 9, 11-15, 18 and 21-23 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 as discussed above. Dependent 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) 11 merely describe(s) the resizing comprising applying an image processing algorithm to adjust spatial dimensions of the pressure distribution image. Claim(s) 14 & 21 merely describe(s) the image processing algorithm being selected from a group consisting of nearest neighbor interpolation and bilinear interpolation. Claim(s) 18 merely describe(s) wherein the causing presentation of the indication of authenticity comprises graphically displaying an authenticity badge on a listing for the footwear. Claim(s) 22 merely describes controlling the pressure measurement machine to apply the predetermined force to the footwear and acquiring sensor outputs from the machine to generate the pressure distribution image. Claim(s) 23 merely describes where analyzing comprises extracting color and location feature pairs from the pressure distribution image and formatting the feature pairs into one or more input vectors.
Dependent Claim(s) 6, 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 video. The video is 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.
Dependent Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 22-23 include the additional elements of a machine learning model, and pressure measurement machine. The machine learning model, and pressure measurement machine are analyzed in the same manner as the machine learning model, and pressure measurement machine in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Therefore, dependent claims 3-4, 6, 9, 11-15, 18 and 21-23 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
As previously disclosed in the Final Rejection on 10/29/2025, Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-15, 18-19 and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101, set forth in this Office Action.
An updated search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 with respect to the Claim Objections, have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The Claim Objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues under Step 2A, Prong One that the amended claims are not directed to managing personal behavior, or following rules or instructions, and are directed to a machine-driven measurement and analysis process in a specific technological field. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the pressure measurement machine, sensors, and machine learning are recited so broadly that they encapsulate the scope of analyzing data. This broad scope of the claim is merely part of the abstract idea, and even when considering the pressure measurement machine, sensors, and machine learning as part of the additional elements, they remain to be “apply it” level elements, because they are using devices in their ordinary capacity to perform a function (capture and analyze data). The generation of a pressure distribution image for the footwear comprising a heatmap or pedobarographic measurement image, resizing by applying an image processing algorithm to adjust spatial dimensions of the pressure distribution image, and analyzing by applying the pressure distribution image to a machine learning model trained with training data including data derived from pressure distribution images of authentic and counterfeit footwear are grouped as a mathematical concept. The rejection has been updated above to show the claims reciting an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the form of “risk mitigation” a “mental process” in the form of “an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion”, and a “mathematical concept”. The Examiner notes that, the Office only needs to identify at least one abstract idea grouping, not necessarily all possible ones.
Applicant argues under Step 2A, Prong Two that the claims integrate any such exception into a practical application, where the claims are anchored to a particular machine integral to the performance of the method and that the pressure measurement machine, equipped with an artificial foot or similar apparatus having multiple sensors and applying a predetermined force to the footwear, is integral in the claimed approach. Further arguing that it enable the workflow by generating the pressure distribution image that the analysis uses. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pressure measurement machine, sensors, and/or machine learning 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 of 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).
Applicant further argues that the claimed approach effects a real-world transformation where the footwear, a physical article is subject to a controlled predetermined force via the machine’s sensorized apparatus and the resulting pressure distribution is transduced into a pressure distribution image represented by colors. Applicant cites to MPEP 2106.05(c). This argument is not persuasive because the transformation in MPEP 2106.05(c) dealt with dealt with transforming a particular article to a different state or thing, transformation of rubber into another state through curing. While the pending claims recite generating an pressure distribution image from a controlled predetermined force, they do not address transforming the physical nature of an object or address problems specifically unique to the field of precision rubber molding, nor do they recite transforming a particular article to a different state or thing, transformation of rubber into another state, therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the resizing across sizes via an image processing algorithm followed by machine learning analysis is a practical implementation in pedobarographic footwear analysis. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem of resizing the image and authenticating the footwear was not a problem caused by the computer, processor, pressure measurement machine, or machine learning involved in the process. The claimed features to resize an image 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 technology or another technology. The claimed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to capture, process, or resize the data, but rather use that technology as a tool to merely perform the abstract analysis (apply it). The alleged improvements are merely inherent to the fact that an improved business process is being performed on generic imputer component in their ordinary capacity. Creating a more efficient business process, such a footwear authentication in a more mathematically efficient manner, is an abstract idea improvement. 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 Applicant further argues under Step 2B, that the claims recite a specific ordered combination of technical elements: (i) generation of a pressure distribution image by a pressure measurement machine with an artificial foot or similar apparatus comprising a plurality of pressure sensors that applies a predetermined force to footwear, (ii) conditional size normalization by “resizing the pressure distribution image… to correspond to a size of the authentic version,” with the resizing comprising applying an image processing algorithm to adjust spatial dimensions when the test footwear’s size differs; and (iii) machine-learning analysis trained with data derived from pressure distribution images of authentic and counterfeit footwear. The additional elements taken alone, and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Applicant further argues that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest determining whether the footwear is the same size and, when different, resizing the pressure distribution image to the authentic version’s size and this undercuts any assertion that this ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further arguing that the absence of evidence were routine and conventional, the record supports a finding of “significantly more”. However, this argument is not persuasive because the search for an inventive concept is not relevant to the novelty or non-obviousness determination, as stated in MPEP 2106.05(I).
“Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government's invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "novelty" of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures / V. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. V. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)."
Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive in view of the teachings above. Furthermore, the rejection does not rely on an assertion that the additional elements recite well-understood, routine, conventional activity, therefore, there is no burden on the examiner to provide a factual determination to support such a conclusion. Therefore, none of the applicants arguments regarding patent eligibility are persuasive and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
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