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
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 03/14/2025. Currently, claims 2-24 are pending. Claims 2, 6, 7, 12, 15, 19 and 21 have been amended. Claims 22-24 are newly added. Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-24 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
“None of the cited and/or relevant prior art, single or in combination, teaches the combination:
“generating, by one or more computing devices, a virtual fashion item model that virtually represents multi-dimensional attributes of a first category of actual items;
generating, by one or more computing devices, virtual representations of a first set of physical items each having different source information than at least one other physical item in the first set of physical items;
classifying, by the one or more computing devices, the first set of physical items together into the first category of actual items based on multi-dimensional attributes of the virtual representations of the first physical items and the first virtual fashion item model of the first category of actual items; and
creating, by the one or more computing devices, sub-categories of items within the first category of actual items, wherein each sub-category includes a subset of the items that each have a same aspect that differentiates the sub-category from at least one other sub-category of the first category of actual items”,
as recited in claims 2, 15 and 19.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for classifying one or more physical items.
Exemplary claim 2 recites in part,
“generating, by one or more computing devices, a first silhouette representing a first category of actual items;
generating, by one or more computing devices, virtual representations of a first set of physical items each having different source information than at least one other physical item in the first set of physical items;
classifying, by the one or more computing devices, the first set of physical items together into the first category of actual items based on multi-dimensional attributes of the virtual representations of the first physical items and the virtual fashion item model of the first category of actual items;
creating, by the one or more computing devices, sub-categories of items within the first category of actual items, wherein each sub-category includes a subset of the items that each have a same aspect that differentiates the sub-category from at least one other sub-category of the first category of actual items; and
outputting, by the one or more computing devices, a user interface that includes a graphical depiction of the first silhouette representing the first category of actual items.”
The above limitations recite the steps of, 1) generating a silhouette representing a first category of items and virtual representations of a first set of physical items, 2) classifying the physical items into first category and sub-categories, and 3) displaying the first category.
The above claims describe the process of classifying one or more physical items and displaying the result. The above limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions (sales activities), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the cited claims recite additional elements in the form of a one or more computing devices used for performing the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computer elements recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites the additional steps of “generating a virtual fashion model that represents multi-dimensional attributes of first category actual items” and “storing the virtual fashion item model in memory”. These additional steps simply creates and stores one or more fashion item attributes (item type, item size, etc.) used for classifying the fashion items. The additional elements amount to insignificant pre-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered individually or in combination, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The computer elements recited represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of “generating a virtual fashion model that represents multi-dimensional attributes of first category actual items” and “storing the virtual fashion item model in memory”, amount to insignificant pre-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 2 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 15 and 19 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 2, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 3-14, 16-18 and 20-24 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/14/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 2-24 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that some of Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added amendments, and have been addressed in the updated rejection.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
In addition, the claim recites the additional steps of “generating a virtual fashion model that represents multi-dimensional attributes of first category actual items” and “storing the virtual fashion item model in memory”. These additional steps simply creates and stores one or more fashion item attributes (item type, item size, etc.) used for classifying the fashion items. The additional elements amount to insignificant pre-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, claims 2-24 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights