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 .
Claims 1-4 and 20 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “to a third party” in the ninth line. In accordance with the principle of giving claims being examined their broadest reasonable interpretation, the third party is interpreted as meaning any party. Examiner notes that paragraph [0063] of the instant specification recites, “and provide evaluation information back to the manufacturer (or a third party).” However, as the claims do not recite a manufacturer (as opposed to a “manufacturing system”, which may not be distinct party) or other identified second party, the language of the specification is not treated as incorporated into the claims, and the third party is interpreted as meaning any party, even a manufacturer.
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite two systems for customizing an article of footwear, constituting abstract ideas in the field of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited systems do not recite specific limitations that would be indicative of the claimed invention being significantly more than an abstract idea, and do not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth in detail below.
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Independent claim 1 recites a system comprising a computing system and a transmission system, and therefore falls within the statutory category of machine, as do its dependents; independent claim 12 recites a system comprising a computing system and a transmission system, and therefore falls within the statutory category of machine, as do its dependents (Mayo test, Step 1). (Step 1: YES)
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, and specifically to commercial interactions under the field of organizing human activity without significantly more (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 1). The claims recite systems for customizing an article of footwear and for customizing articles of footwear using a customization cycle. Although purchases or other strictly commercial operations are not explicitly recited, the claims would make little sense if not used for customizing footwear articles to improve them for sale to customers, or for related consumption purposes. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor is linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 2). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The claims do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by the use of, a particular machine. The claims do not recite effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to different state or thing. The claims do not recite applying or using a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 2). (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
There are no additional elements recited in the claims to raise them to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field (Mayo test, Step 2B). The detailed systems recited in claims 1-4 and 6-11 and in claims 12-20 are non-obvious over the prior art, but non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a different issue from eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The specific steps of the claims, such as generating and displaying a rating system for rating forefoot cushioning, receiving input data including a customer-selected rating of a first level of forefoot cushioning, and transmitting the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning to a third party, etc., do not qualify, alone or in combination, to raise the claimed method and system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites: A system for customizing an article of footwear, comprising: a computing system configured to generate and display a rating system for rating forefoot cushioning, wherein the rating system includes a display that enables input of customer-selected ratings of multiple aspects of forefoot cushioning characteristics; an input system configured to receive input data based on a user interaction with the rating system including a customer-selected rating of a first level of forefoot cushioning of a first sole member of a first article of footwear; a transmission system configured to transmit the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning to a third party; and a custom footwear manufacturing system configured to upon receiving the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning, generate a customized footwear design based on the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning, and to automatically trigger a manufacturing process to construct a customized article of footwear in accordance with the customized footwear design, wherein the transmission system is further configured to transmit a customized footwear manufacture update to the computing system to cause the computing system to automatically display the customized footwear manufacture update. Tsuda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0249027) discloses (paragraph 4, emphasis added), “It is a conventional practice in an information processing apparatus such as a computer to generate a plurality of display regions including various kinds of display elements to be presented to a user, for example, windows or tabs, and switch the display regions for display on a screen. With such information processing apparatus, the user performs an operation of selecting a window or tab to give an instruction to switch the display regions. Further, in a case where a display region has a size exceeding the screen, the information processing apparatus cannot display on the screen all the display elements such as text and images arranged in the display region at once. In this case, the user performs an input operation of specifying a direction to move (scroll) a range of the display region that is displayed on the screen, and to thereby see each display element arranged in the display region.” Hence, generating and displaying a rating system, including a display, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology; the input of particular kinds of ratings is not in itself technological. Miller et al. (U.S. Patent 9,210,030) discloses (column 1, lines 14-16, emphasis added), “In conventional client-server environments, a client typically receives input data from a user and then transmits the input data to a server.” Hence, the input system configured to receive input data including a customer-selected rating of a first level of forefoot cushioning of a first sole member of a first article of footwear requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology; and the same may apply to the transmission system configured to transmit the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning to a third party.
A fortiori, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, the transmission system configured to transmit the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning to a third party and further configured to transmit a customized footwear manufacture update to the computing system to cause the computing system to automatically display the customized footwear manufacture update need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
The custom footwear manufacturing system configured to generate a customized footwear design based on the customer-selected rating of the first level of footwear cushioning to automatically trigger a manufacture process to construct a customized article of footwear in accordance with customized footwear design is described at a high level of generality, and could refer to any sort of equipment (including knives, scissors, glue dispensers, and other hand tools) which a human being might use to manufacture a customized article of footwear. A human being could generate a customized footwear design based on the customer-selected rating as a matter of human judgement, or a generic computer could do so by implementing programming with some unspecified set of rules for generating designs based on customer-selected ratings of footwear cushioning. There is no recitation of specific machinery carrying out specific manufacturing operations. The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites that the computing system, the input system, and the transmission system comprise portions of a mobile computing device selected from the group consisting of: a smartphone, a cell phone, a tablet, and a laptop. Chiu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0346825) discloses (paragraph 94, emphasis added), “In one or more embodiments, the computerized mobile system 104 may be implemented within a form factor of a mobile computing device, such as a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a tablet computer, or a smart watch, all of which are widely available commercially, and are well known to persons of skill in the art.” Hence, having the computing system, the input system, and the transmission system be as recited in claim 2 would require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 2, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites that the rating system is generated by an application program running on the mobile computing device. Fosback et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0095275) discloses (paragraph 1, emphasis added), “Conventionally, after a [sic] application program has been developed and is ready for distribution, it can be uploaded to an online store, such as the iTunes App Store from Apple Inc., for distribution. Typically, a back-end system, such as iTunes Connect from Apple Inc., can be used by the application developer to submit the application program and to configure distribution parameters.” For this to have been done conventionally, application programs themselves must have been well-understood, routine, and conventional, making their use merely a use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 3, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 2, recites that the rating system that the computing system is configured to generate and display includes a display of a sliding scale on which the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning may be entered. Clarkson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0046305) discloses (paragraph 103, emphasis added), “The user selects from the multiple answers – which can be presented in either multiple choice format or sliding scale format – for each question, and the users [sic] answers are received and stored in the computer system 100 in the database 106 in the results table 38. This selection can be done by using the mouse 105 to click buttons or drag a sliding scale, as appropriate and as well known to persons skilled in the art.” Hence, the display of a sliding scale on which the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning may be entered requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 4, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites that the multiple aspects of the forefoot cushioning characteristics include resilience, rigidity, shock absorption, and comfort. Having the multiple aspects of the forefoot cushioning characteristics include these is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claim 6, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, recites that the rating system that the computing system is configured to generate and display includes a display that enables input of customer-selected ratings of multiple aspects of forefoot cushioning characteristics. This is not in itself technological. Claim 8, which depends from claim 7, recites that the display includes a display of multiple sliding scales for receiving input for the multiple aspects of the forefoot cushioning characteristics. Clarkson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0046305) discloses (paragraph 103, emphasis added), “The user selects from the multiple answers – which can be presented in either multiple choice format or sliding scale format – for each question, and the users [sic] answers are received and stored in the computer system 100 in the database 106 in the results table 38. This selection can be done by using the mouse 105 to click buttons or drag a sliding scale, as appropriate and as well known to persons skilled in the art.” Hence, the display of multiple sliding scales for receiving input for the multiple aspects of the forefoot cushioning characteristics requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 7 and 8, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites that the rating system that the computing system is configured to generate and display includes a display of a sliding scale on which the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning may be entered. Clarkson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0046305) discloses (paragraph 103, emphasis added), “The user selects from the multiple answers – which can be presented in either multiple choice format or sliding scale format – for each question, and the users [sic] answers are received and stored in the computer system 100 in the database 106 in the results table 38. This selection can be done by using the mouse 105 to click buttons or drag a sliding scale, as appropriate and as well known to persons skilled in the art.” Hence, the display of a sliding scale on which the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning may be entered requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 9, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea
Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, recites that the transmission system is configured to transmit the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning in a manner to associate he customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning of the first article of footwear with: (a) a specific customer and (b) with a first iteration of a customization cycle associated with the specific customer. Associating particular information with a particular person and/or operation is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claim 10, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 11, which depends from claim 1, recites that the computing system receives input for generating the rating system via an email, through a web browser, or via a text message. Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0055336) discloses (paragraph 28, emphasis added), “The system 20 includes a User Input Message Receiver 22 for receiving user generated messages. The User Input Message Receiver 22 may be configured as [a] cellular receiver or transceiver for receiving cellular voice and text messages in a manner well known in the art.” Hence, it would have required only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology for the computing system to receive input for generating the rating system via an email, through a web browser, or via a text message. The limitation of claim 11, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Independent claim 12 recites: A system for customizing articles of footwear using a customization cycle, the system comprising: a computing system configured to generate and display a rating system for rating forefoot cushioning over a plurality of iterations of a customization cycle, wherein the customization cycle is associated with a specific customer; an input system configured to receive one or more user interactions with the rating system that provide input data from the specific customer including input data from the specific customer including: (a) a customer-selected rating of a first level of forefoot cushioning of a first sole member of a first article of footwear in a first iteration of the customization cycle, and (b) a customer-selected rating of a second level of forefoot cushioning of a second sole member of a second article of footwear in a second iteration of the customization cycle; and a transmission system configured to transmit: (a) the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning to a custom footwear manufacturing system in a manner to associate the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning with: (i) the specific customer and (ii) with the first iteration of the customization cycle, and (b) the customer-selected rating of the second level of forefoot cushioning to the custom footwear manufacturing system in a manner to associate the customer-selected rating of the second level of forefoot cushioning with: (i) the specific customer and (ii) with the second iteration of the customization cycle; wherein the custom footwear manufacturing system is configured to, upon receiving the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning and the customer-selected rating of the second level of forefoot cushioning, generate a customized footwear design associated with a third iteration of the customization cycle based on the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning and the customer-selected rating of the second level of forefoot cushioning and to automatically trigger a manufacture process to construct a customized article of footwear in accordance with the customized footwear design. Tsuda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0249027) discloses (paragraph 4, emphasis added), “It is a conventional practice in an information processing apparatus such as a computer to generate a plurality of display regions including various kinds of display elements to be presented to a user, for example, windows or tabs, and switch the display regions for display on a screen. With such information processing apparatus, the user performs an operation of selecting a window or tab to give an instruction to switch the display regions. Further, in a case where a display region has a size exceeding the screen, the information processing apparatus cannot display on the screen all the display elements such as text and images arranged in the display region at once. In this case, the user performs an input operation of specifying a direction to move (scroll) a range of the display region that is displayed on the screen, and to thereby see each display element arranged in the display region.” Hence, generating and displaying a rating system requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. It is not in itself technological for the customization cycle to be associated with a specific customer. Miller et al. (U.S. Patent 9,210,030) discloses (column 1, lines 14-16, emphasis added), “In conventional client-server environments, a client typically receives input data from a user and then transmits the input data to a server.” Hence, the input system configured to receive input data including customer-selected ratings of first and second levels of forefoot cushioning of first and second sole members of first and second articles of footwear in first and second iterations of the customization cycle requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology; and the same may apply to the transmission system configured to transmit two customer-selected ratings of the first and second levels of forefoot cushioning to a custom footwear manufacturing system. Moreover, associating the first and second customer-selected ratings with (i) the specific customer and (ii) first and second iterations of the customization cycle is not in itself technological.
A fortiori, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, the transmission system configured to transmit the customer-selected ratings of the first and second levels of forefoot cushioning to a custom footwear manufacturing system need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The custom footwear manufacturing system is described at a high level of generality, and could refer to any sort of equipment (including knives, scissors, glue dispensers, and other hand tools) which a human being might use to manufacture a customized article of footwear, in combination with some kind of communication device for receiving transmitted information. A human being could generate a customized footwear design based on the customer-selected rating as a matter of human judgement, or a generic computer could do so by implementing programming with some unspecified set of rules for generating designs based on customer-selected ratings of footwear cushioning. There is no recitation of specific machinery carrying out specific manufacturing operations. The limitations of claim 12, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, recites that the rating system that the computing system is configured to generate and display includes a display that enables input of customer-selected ratings of multiple aspects of forefoot cushioning characteristics. This is not in itself technological. Claim 14, which depends from claim 13, recites that the display includes a display of multiple sliding scales for receiving input for the multiple aspects of the forefoot cushioning characteristics. Clarkson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0046305) discloses (paragraph 103, emphasis added), “The user selects from the multiple answers – which can be presented in either multiple choice format or sliding scale format – for each question, and the users [sic] answers are received and stored in the computer system 100 in the database 106 in the results table 38. This selection can be done by using the mouse 105 to click buttons or drag a sliding scale, as appropriate and as well known to persons skilled in the art.” Hence, the display of multiple sliding scales for receiving input for the multiple aspects of the forefoot cushioning characteristics requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 13 and 14, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 12, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 15, which depends from claim 13, recites that the multiple aspects of the forefoot cushioning characteristics include resilience, rigidity, shock absorption, and comfort. Having the multiple aspects of the forefoot cushioning characteristics include these is not in itself technological. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 and 15, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 12, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 16, which depends from claim 12, recites that the rating system that the computing system is configured to generate and display includes a display of a sliding scale on which the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning may be entered. Clarkson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0046305) discloses (paragraph 103, emphasis added), “The user selects from the multiple answers – which can be presented in either multiple choice format or sliding scale format – for each question, and the users [sic] answers are received and stored in the computer system 100 in the database 106 in the results table 38. This selection can be done by using the mouse 105 to click buttons or drag a sliding scale, as appropriate and as well known to persons skilled in the art.” Hence, the display of a sliding scale on which the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning may be entered requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 16, considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 12, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 17, which depends from claim 12, recites that the computing system, the input system, and the transmission system comprise portions of a mobile computing device selected from the group consisting of: a smartphone, a cell phone, a tablet, and a laptop. Chiu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0346825) discloses (paragraph 94, emphasis added), “In one or more embodiments, the computerized mobile system 104 may be implemented within a form factor of a mobile computing device, such as a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a tablet computer, or a smart watch, all of which are widely available commercially, and are well known to persons of skill in the art.” Hence, having the computing system, the input system, and the transmission system be as recited in claim 17 would require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 17, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 12, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, recites that the rating system is generated by an application program running on the mobile computing device. Fosback et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0095275) discloses (paragraph 1, emphasis added), “Conventionally, after a [sic] application program has been developed and is ready for distribution, it can be uploaded to an online store, such as the iTunes App Store from Apple Inc., for distribution. Typically, a back-end system, such as iTunes Connect from Apple Inc., can be used by the application developer to submit the application program and to configure distribution parameters.” For this to have been done conventionally, application programs themselves must have been well-understood, routine, and conventional, making their use merely a use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 18, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 12 and claim 17, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 19, which depends from claim 12, recites that the computing system receives input for generating the rating system via an email, through a web browser, or via a text message. Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0055336) discloses (paragraph 28, emphasis added), “The system 20 includes a User Input Message Receiver 22 for receiving user generated messages. The User Input Message Receiver 22 may be configured as [a] cellular receiver or transceiver for receiving cellular voice and text messages in a manner well known in the art.” Hence, it would have required only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology for the computing system to receive input for generating the rating system via an email, through a web browser, or via a text message. The limitation of claim 19, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 12, does not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 20, which depends from claim 12, recites that the input system is further configured to receive input data from the specific customer including: (a) a customer-selected rating of a third level of forefoot cushioning of a third sole member of a third article of footwear in a third iteration of the customization cycle, and that the transmission system further is configured to transmit the customer-selected rating of the third level of forefoot cushioning to the custom footwear manufacturing system in a manner to associate the customer-selected rating of the third level of forefoot cushioning with: (i) the specific customer and (ii) with the third iteration of the customization cycle. Miller et al. (U.S. Patent 9,210,030) discloses (column 1, lines 14-16, emphasis added), “In conventional client-server environments, a client typically receives input data from a user and then transmits the input data to a server.” Hence, receiving the recited input data from the specific customer requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Based on court precedents cited with regard to claim 12 above, the transmission system configured to transmit the customer-selected rating of the third level of forefoot cushioning to the third party need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Associating particular information with a particular person and/or operation is not in itself technological. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 12, do not raise the claimed invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: The closest prior art of record, End et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0293076), discloses an input system configured to receive input data including customer-selected ratings of footwear (paragraph 35, emphasis added), “Additionally, various inputs 410 are provided to allow the user to customize various aspects of the reference footwear model, thereby defining customized user comfort ratings.” End further discloses (paragraph 48, emphasis added), “Upon selecting the input field, the user may be prompted to enter in a reference footwear model, size, width, and any comfort ratings as discussed above.” End also discloses a computer system (Figure 1; paragraph 27, emphasis added), “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary communications network 100 according to an embodiment of the invention. The network 100 transmission system may include various user computing devices such as desktop computer 102a, portable device 102b (including, but not limited to cellular telephones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, or other portable devices capable of establishing a communications link), and laptop or notebook computer 102c.” End does not disclose rating of a first level of forefoot cushioning of a first sole member of a first article of footwear, but Schoenborn (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0277792) teaches (paragraph 3, emphasis added), “There is a continuing effort to provide ever more comfortable footwear. . . . A higher density material in the heel provides greater support upon heel strike, while a lower density material provides appropriate cushioning and support for the typically smaller loads encountered in the forefoot.”
End does not disclose a transmission system configured to transmit the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning to a third party, but Wilkinson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0242929) teaches (paragraph 71, emphasis added), “In an additional feature, the system may solicit and collect feedback from multiple users of the recommendation system. . . . Additionally, the system can analyze the feedback to identify any particular trends related to a specific manufacturer or item. In this case, the system may send information related to the feedback to the manufacturer for review. Based upon the feedback information, the manufacturer may decide to alter an item they are currently producing, or produce a new item upon the feedback.”
Further, Lyden (U.S. Patent 6,601,042) discloses a custom footwear manufacturing system configured to manufacture a customized article of footwear (column 43, lines 32-45, emphasis added), “Given the information and intelligence created with respect to an individual wearer, and a ready and adequate stock of the various components anticipated for use in making the preferred articles of footwear, a worker and/or automated system possibly including robotics can manufacture or assemble a customized article of footwear within thirty minutes, and perhaps even less than five minutes. For example, selections can be made from a ready stock of different uppers 23, lasting boards 79, spring elements 51, insoles 31, and sole 32 components having different configurations and dimensions corresponding to a selected size length article of footwear 22, and the customized article of footwear 22 then be rapidly manufactured or assembled, as desired.” See also Lyden, column 43, lines 12-20, as well as column 4, line 54, through column 5, line 24. Lyden does not, however, disclose that the manufacturing system is configured to manufacture a customized article of footwear based on the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning.
Furthermore, neither End, Schoenborn, Wilkinson, Lyden, nor any other prior art of record discloses that the rating system includes a display that enables input of customer-selected ratings of multiple aspects of forefoot cushioning characteristics. Neither End, Schoenborn, Wilkinson, nor Lyden discloses a manufacturing system configured to generate a customized footwear design.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and objected to for informalities, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: The closest prior art of record, End et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0293076), discloses an input system configured to receive input data including customer-selected ratings of footwear (paragraph 35, emphasis added), “Additionally, various inputs 410 are provided to allow the user to customize various aspects of the reference footwear model, thereby defining customized user comfort ratings.” End further discloses (paragraph 48, emphasis added), “Upon selecting the input field, the user may be prompted to enter in a reference footwear model, size, width, and any comfort ratings as discussed above.” End also discloses a computer system (Figure 1; paragraph 27, emphasis added), “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary communications network 100 according to an embodiment of the invention. The network 100 transmission system may include various user computing devices such as desktop computer 102a, portable device 102b (including, but not limited to cellular telephones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, or other portable devices capable of establishing a communications link), and laptop or notebook computer 102c.” End does not disclose rating of a first level of forefoot cushioning of a first sole member of a first article of footwear, but Schoenborn (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0277792) teaches (paragraph 3, emphasis added), “There is a continuing effort to provide ever more comfortable footwear. . . . A higher density material in the heel provides greater support upon heel strike, while a lower density material provides appropriate cushioning and support for the typically smaller loads encountered in the forefoot.”
End does not disclose a transmission system configured to transmit the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning to a custom footwear manufacturing system, but Wilkinson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0242929) teaches (paragraph 71, emphasis added), “In an additional feature, the system may solicit and collect feedback from multiple users of the recommendation system. . . . Additionally, the system can analyze the feedback to identify any particular trends related to a specific manufacturer or item. In this case, the system may send information related to the feedback to the manufacturer for review. Based upon the feedback information, the manufacturer may decide to alter an item they are currently producing, or produce a new item upon the feedback.”
Lyden (U.S. Patent 6,601,042) discloses a custom footwear manufacturing system configured to manufacture a customized article of footwear (column 43, lines 32-45, emphasis added), “Given the information and intelligence created with respect to an individual wearer, and a ready and adequate stock of the various components anticipated for use in making the preferred articles of footwear, a worker and/or automated system possibly including robotics can manufacture or assemble a customized article of footwear within thirty minutes, and perhaps even less than five minutes. For example, selections can be made from a ready stock of different uppers 23, lasting boards 79, spring elements 51, insoles 31, and sole 32 components having different configurations and dimensions corresponding to a selected size length article of footwear 22, and the customized article of footwear 22 then be rapidly manufactured or assembled, as desired.” See also Lyden, column 43, lines 12-20, as well as column 4, line 54, through column 5, line 24. Lyden does not, however, disclose that the manufacturing system is configured to manufacture a customized article of footwear associated with a third iteration of the customization cycle based on the customer-selected rating of the first level of forefoot cushioning and the customer-selected rating of the second level of forefoot cushioning.
Neither End, Lyden, nor any other prior art of record expressly discloses receiving input data including a customer-selected rating of a second level of forefoot cushioning of a second sole member of a second article of footwear in a second iteration of the customization cycle. Neither End, Lyden, nor any other prior art of record discloses that the transmission system is configured to transmit customer-selected ratings of first or second levels of forefoot cushioning to a custom footwear manufacturing system in a manner to associate the customer-selected ratings with (i) the specific customer and (ii) with the first and second iterations of the customization cycle. Neither End, Schoenborn, Wilkinson, nor Lyden discloses a manufacturing system configured to generate a customized footwear design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims as amended do not overcome the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant argues, first, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and specifically not to “commercial interactions” or “fundamental economic principles or practices” (page 8 of the Amendment and Remarks). Examiner replies that the amended claims, although not formally directed to commercial interactions, are effectively so directed, as the recited systems make little sense outside the context of commerce, and can be presumed to involve purchasing. Commercial interactions are recited in the instant specification, and in particular in the abstract (emphasis added): “The sole member can be manufactured using a system that modifies the forefoot cushioning of the sole member over a series of footwear purchases.” It is also noted that claim 1 recites “a customer-selected rating of a first level of forefoot cushioning of a first sole member of a first article of footwear,” and that claim 12 recites this and also “a customer-selected rating of a second level of forefoot cushioning of a second sole member of a second article of footwear”. The customer-selected ratings imply that the user is a customer involved in commercial interactions, rather than, for example, someone for whom a corporation owning a manufacturing system is providing improved footwear out of pure generosity.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a system that is fundamentally directed to improvements for very specific computing devices (page 9 of the Amendment and Remarks). Examiner replies that the claims do not recite improvements, in a technological sense, to computing devices, nor improvements in footwear as such, but the use of essentially generic computing devices to have customer-selected ratings of forefoot cushioning characteristics result in modified footwear. The claims recite a manufacturing system configured to generate a customized footwear design by some unspecified process, and to automatically trigger a manufacture process to construct a customized article of footwear in accordance with the customized footwear design, again by unspecified means at a high level of generality.
Applicant argues (pages 9-11 of the Amendment and Remarks) that the claims implement any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant writes, “The claims recite an incredibly specific and detailed process whereby a custom footwear manufacturing system is configured to receive specific information indicating a level [of] forefoot cushioning for the purpose of generating customized footwear designs.” What actually takes place in manufacturing facilities owned by Applicant may qualify as an incredibly specific and detailed process, but what is recited in the claims does not. Instead, a generic computing system and generic means for constructing an article of footwear are described as achieving a practical result, somehow. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the present claims do not recite a practical implementation of the abstract idea according to Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo test.
Similar considerations apply to Step 2B, under which Applicant argues that the claims add significantly more than any alleged abstract idea (pages 11-12 of the Amendment and Remarks). There are examples listed in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 2106.05(f), of elements found to be mere instructions to apply a digital exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome, for example, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In that case, remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and the pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously in accessible information was found to be insufficient.
Examiner therefore maintains that the rejection of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is in accordance with precedent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goldie (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0066655) discloses custom footwear and a custom footwear fabrication system and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as attachment).
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, Marissa 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 March 24, 2026