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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2024, 07/03/2025, 09/15/2025, 10/08/2025, and 11/25/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition section configured to…” in claim 1, “a determination section configured to…” in claims 1-12, and “a provision section configured to…” in claims 1 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 recite such limitation(s): “an acquisition section configured to…” in claim 1, “a determination section configured to…” in claims 1-12, and “a provision section configured to…” in claims 1 and 5. The subject matter of the claim (recited above) does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such system as being that which Applicant adequately described as the invention or what applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the manner in which the acquisition section is actuarially configured to acquire attribute information, the determination section is configured to determine information, and/or the provision section is configured to provide the information (i.e. how all these actions are determined or calculated). It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how this value is generate raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing. Claims 2-12 inherit the deficiency noted in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “an acquisition section configured to…” in claim 1, “a determination section configured to…” in claims 1-12, and “a provision section configured to…” in claims 1 and 5.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-12 inherit the deficiency noted in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation "the predetermined condition" in line 2 of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim then continues to recite “a predetermined condition.” It is unclear whether this is the same predetermined condition recited in line 2 or a different predetermined condition.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation "the predetermined condition" in line 2 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation "the weighting" in line 2 of claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation "the predetermined condition" in line 2 of claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is 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.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the information processing apparatus, as claimed in claims 1-12, is directed to an apparatus. Additionally, the method, as claimed in claim 13, is directed to a process.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of proposing footwear in a suitable size. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Acquire attribute information of a user that has purchased footwear in a size suitable for foot development;
Determine information for evaluating the size of the purchased footwear based on an attribute of the user included in the attribute information; and
Provide information for proposing footwear in a size suitable for the foot development based on an evaluation result based on the information determined.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because providing information for proposing footwear in a size suitable is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations.
Additionally, the abstract idea identified above is also considered to be a mental process. Mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In this case, determining information for evaluating the size of the purchased footwear and providing information based on an evaluation result is a type of evaluation and judgment. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor or circuit comprising an acquisition section, determination section, and provision section. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing footwear information) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-12 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-12 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: online mall (claim 7). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-12 are also ineligible.
Independent claim 13 recites the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Independent Claim 13 recites the additional elements of a computer. The additional elements in Independent claim 13 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sweitzer et al. (US 2009/0094138).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Sweitzer discloses An information processing apparatus/method comprising at least one processor or circuit comprising (See at least paragraph [0271]-[0272], [0281] , [0283])
An acquisition section configured to acquire attribute information of a user that has purchased footwear in a size suitable for foot development (See at least paragraph [0021] disclosing shoes/footwear, [0037] disclosing attribute information such as body measurements, brand/product type preferences, measurement parameters, etc., [0038], [0063] disclosing child-specific inputs, Fig. 1, [0217] disclosing database to store consumer’s purchase history for use as input that may affect size, [0246] disclosing storing current sies, purchase histories, and other information related to footwear sizing for a child or children);
A determination section configured to determine information for evaluating the size of the purchased footwear based on an attribute of the user included in the attribute information acquired by the acquisition section (See at least paragraph [0038] disclosing estimating child’s growth trajectory and project changes in their footwear size by brand over time, use information regarding upper limits of body measurements for size they are currently wearing and project when a child will reach those limits based on estimated growth pattern of height and weight by age, [0061], [0107], Fig. 1, , Fig. 5a-b disclosing evaluating the size based on other attribute information);
A provision section configured to provide information for proposing footwear in a size suitable for the foot development based on an evaluation result based on the information determined by the determination section (See at least paragraph [0061] disclosing determining based on inputs and calculations what size would be best fit for the child and presenting that information to a consumer to assist them, [0093], Fig. 1 disclosing process for receiving attribute/size information, evaluating it, and returning product specific best fit size information).
Regarding Claim 2, Sweitzer teaches and suggests all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Sweitzer discloses wherein when the attribute of the user meets a predetermined condition, the determination section determines an evaluation result evaluated within a predetermined time period after purchase of the footwear as the evaluation result, and when the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section determines an evaluation result evaluated within a time period shorter than the predetermined time period after the purchase of the footwear as the evaluation result (See at least paragraph [0006] disclosing child of average height and weight may have growth that appears in given period of time, [0076] disclosing children may grow more quickly or slowly than others and if not average may be prompted for more measurements or put into different quality such as baby, toddler, or child depending on how they’re growing, [0211], [0214] disclosing adjustments in evaluation based on quicker or slower growth rate, [0271], [0272], [0274] disclosing periods of faster or slower growth as determined by average growth rates, [0278], [0280]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sweitzer teaches and suggests all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Sweitzer discloses wherein when the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section determines an evaluation result evaluated within a first period estimated to be taken until a foot size of the user meets a predetermined condition as the evaluation result (See at least paragraph [0006] disclosing child of average height and weight may have growth that appears in given period of time, [0076] disclosing children may grow more quickly or slowly than others and if not average may be prompted for more measurements or put into different quality such as baby, toddler, or child depending on how they’re growing, [0211], [0214] disclosing adjustments in evaluation based on quicker or slower growth rate, [0271], [0272], [0274] disclosing periods of faster or slower growth as determined by average growth rates, [0278], [0280], Fig. 3 disclosing child size category requiring different evaluation measurement information levels of detail, Fig. 6 disclosing evaluations taken until certain age/weight/length).
Regarding Claim 5, Sweitzer teaches and suggests all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Sweitzer discloses wherein the determination section determines a timing to propose evaluation as the information for evaluating the size of the purchased footwear, and the provision section provides information for proposing the evaluation at the timing (See at least Abstract, paragraph [0038] disclosing estimating/predict size change and expected date of change and notify consumer that child will soon outgrow clothing, [0147], [0151], [0204], Fig. 5B disclosing calculating when child is projected to have changed sizes, calculate the date of change by product type and store the projected date changes to identify earliest expected size change date of body measurement and run notification process and queue notification messages for daily batch notifications)
Regarding Claim 6, Sweitzer teaches and suggests all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Sweitzer discloses wherein when the attribute of the user meets the predetermined condition, the determination section determines a timing when the user has re-measured his/her feet as the timing, and when the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section does not determine the timing as the timing. (See at least paragraph [0108], [0112]-[0113], [0150], [0152])
Regarding Claim 7, Sweitzer teaches and suggests all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Sweitzer discloses wherein when the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section determines a timing when the user has accessed a predetermined online mall that provides the purchased footwear as the timing. (See at least paragraph [0153], [0213], [0217], [0249], [0271], [0280]).
Regarding Claim 8, Sweitzer teaches and suggests all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Sweitzer discloses wherein when delivery status of the purchased footwear is available, and the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section determines a timing when delivery has been completed as the timing. (See at least paragraph [0234]-[0237], [0257]-[0258])
Regarding Claim 9, Sweitzer teaches and suggests all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Sweitzer discloses wherein the determination section determines proposal content for proposing the evaluation as the information for evaluating the size of the purchased footwear. (See at least paragraph [0071] disclosing prompting consumer to respond to series of simple questions to help estimate measurements, [0086], [0237], [0272] disclosing answers to questions may be used in determining whether child is shorter or longer than average, [0281]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweitzer et al. (US 2009/0094138) in view of Masuko (US 2014/0108202).
Regarding Claim 4, Sweitzer teaches or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Sweitzer additionally, discloses wherein the determination section determines an evaluation result evaluated within the first period estimated based on a food development pattern according to development speed of an individual user as the evaluation result. (See at least paragraph [0272]-[0274], [0278] disclosing determining size based not just on average but whether the child may be shorter or longer than average as well as go thru periods with faster or slower growth). Sweitzer does not expressly provide for applying a weighting.
However, Masuko discloses applying a weighting (See at least paragraph [0095], [0096], [0203], [0205], Fig. 3A-3C all disclosing weighting evaluation based on various information to help determine size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included weightings as taught by Masuko in the size recommendation system of Sweitzer because it would help better support a user to select size of an item for sale. See at least Masuko paragraph [0001], [0005]-[0007].
Regarding Claim 10, Sweitzer teaches or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Sweitzer does not expressly provide for wherein the determination section determines the weighting of the evaluation as the information for evaluating the size of the purchased footwear.
However, Masuko discloses wherein the determination section determines the weighting of the evaluation as the information for evaluating the size of the purchased footwear (See at least paragraph [0095], [0096], [0203], [0205], Fig. 3A-3C all disclosing weighting evaluation based on various information to help determine size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included weightings as taught by Masuko in the size recommendation system of Sweitzer because it would help better support a user to select size of an item for sale. See at least Masuko paragraph [0001], [0005]-[0007].
Regarding Claim 11, Sweitzer teaches or suggest all of the limitations of claim 10. However, Sweitzer does not expressly provide for wherein when the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section determines the weighting such that a weight of the evaluation decreases as the attribute deviates more from an attribute of the predetermined condition.
However, Masuko discloses wherein when the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section determines the weighting such that a weight of the evaluation decreases as the attribute deviates more from an attribute of the predetermined condition (See at least paragraph [0095], [0096], [0203], [0205], Fig. 3A-3C all disclosing weight decreases based on variety of attributes such as reviews, returns, timing, and number of evaluations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included weightings as taught by Masuko in the size recommendation system of Sweitzer because it would help better support a user to select size of an item for sale. See at least Masuko paragraph [0001], [0005]-[0007].
Regarding Claim 12, Sweitzer teaches or suggest all of the limitations of claim 10. However, Sweitzer does not expressly provide for wherein when the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section determines the weighting such that the weight of the evaluation decreases as a time period taken before the evaluation is made extends longer after the information for proposing the evaluation is provided.
However, Masuko discloses wherein when the attribute of the user does not meet the predetermined condition, the determination section determines the weighting such that the weight of the evaluation decreases as a time period taken before the evaluation is made extends longer after the information for proposing the evaluation is provided (See at least paragraph [0095], [0096], [0203], [0205], Fig. 3A-C all disclosing timing factored as part of evaluation with weightings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included weightings as taught by Masuko in the size recommendation system of Sweitzer because it would help better support a user to select size of an item for sale. See at least Masuko paragraph [0001], [0005]-[0007].
Conclusion
The references cited in the form PTO-892 were not applied under relevant section §103 in the above Office Action, however, they are considered relevant to both claimed and unclaimed features of the instant invention. Applicant is herein advised to review the cited prior art references prior to responding to the instant Office Action in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. For example:
NPL: “Bayesian models for product size recommendations” (Sembium, V., Rastogi, R., Tekumalla, L. and Saroop, A., Bayesian models for product size recommendations, 2018, April, In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference, pp. 679-687.) disclosing using past transaction information to help determine size of footwear for adults and children.
Kusano et al. (US 2024/0119502) disclosing storing user data regarding gender, age, and past foot size to help predict change in foot size over time for a target person.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights