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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on October 25, 2023 has been considered.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 11, and 21 recite an abstract idea of “comparing … the user input dataset against a plurality of footwear datasets, the user input dataset including at least one of a body measurement or an activity measurement” (mental process), “generating … based on the matching, a footwear profile based on the user input dataset and the footwear dataset” (mental process), “determining … based on the user input dataset, a scan of a user foot is required” (mental process), “providing … in response to determining the scan of the user foot is required, a request for the scan of the user foot” (mental process), “extracting … a foot measurement representative of a portion of the user foot from the scan of the user foot“ (mental process), “extracting … a foot measurement representative of a portion of the user foot from the scan of the user foot” (mental process), “adjusting … a configurable area of the footwear profile based on the foot measurement” (mental process), “generating … a recommended footwear configuration based on the footwear profile and the adjusted configurable area” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
“Receiving … a user input dataset related to footwear” and “receiving … in response to providing the request, the scan of the user foot” are directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)). The “receiving … a user input dataset related to footwear” and “receiving … the scan of the user foot” steps are further well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 21 and their respective dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 8-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carbajo et al. (US 2024/0362698).
It is noted that US Provisional Application 63/179,662 does not disclose the method of claims 1-21. Thus, claims 1-21 do not benefit from the filing date of the provisional application, i.e., April 26, 2021.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 21, Carbajo et al. discloses a method and system (Abstract) comprising:
receiving, using at least one processor (paragraphs 0036, 0082), a user input dataset related to footwear (303; dimensions of foot are related to dimensions of a footwear, paragraph 0064, lines 9-14);
comparing, using the at least one processor, the user input dataset against a plurality of footwear datasets (paragraph 0016), the user input dataset including at least one of a body measurement (paragraph 0064, lines 9-14),
matching, using the at least one processor and based on the comparing, the user input dataset to a footwear dataset of the plurality of footwear datasets (paragraph 0016, lines 2-4);
generating, using the at least one processor and based on the matching, a footwear profile based on the user input dataset and the footwear dataset (shoe recommendations, paragraph 0016, lines 4-5);
determining, using the at least one processor and based on the user input dataset, a scan of a user foot is required (paragraph 0058, lines 1-3);
providing, using the at least one processor and in response to determining the scan of the user foot is required, a request for the scan of the user foot (paragraph 0058, lines 3-6);
receiving, using the at least one processor and in response to providing the request, the scan of the user foot (Abstract, lines 1-4, current scan is predicted, paragraph 0058, lines 1-3);
extracting, using the at least one processor, a foot measurement representative of a portion of the user foot from the scan of the user foot (foot size is generated from foot profile which is from scan, Abstract, lines 1-4);
adjusting, using the at least one processor, a configurable area of the footwear profile based on the foot measurement (determining footwear size based on predicted foot growth, Abstract, lines 5-9, i.e., footwear size is adjusted based on foot growth); and
generating, using the at least one processor, a recommended footwear configuration (shoe recommendations, paragraph 0016, lines 3-4) based on the footwear profile (paragraph 0016, lines 3-4) and the adjusted configurable area (adjusted footwear size, where determining footwear size is based on predicted foot growth, Abstract, lines 5-9, i.e., footwear size is adjusted based on foot growth).
It is noted that the user input dataset including at least one of an activity measurement is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Carbajo et al. discloses at least one processor, and
at least one non-transitory storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (paragraphs 0036, 0082).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Carbajo et al. discloses
presenting, using the at least one processor, a query including at least one of the foot measurement or the user input dataset at a database communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the database configured to store the plurality of footwear datasets representative of footwear profiles based on a plurality of user input datasets (comparing 3D profile of a shoe with the 3D foot profile, paragraph 0016);
receiving, using the at least one processor and based on the plurality of footwear datasets, a customization of the configurable area associated with the footwear profile (comparing 3D profile of a shoe, paragraph 0016), the customization corresponding to the at least one of the foot measurement or the user input dataset satisfying a footwear feature threshold generated by the plurality of footwear datasets (3D profile of a shoe matches with the 3D foot profile to generate the first list of shoe recommendations for the user, paragraph 0016); and
adjusting, using the at least one processor, the configurable area of the footwear profile based on the customization (determining footwear size based on predicted foot growth, Abstract, lines 5-9, i.e., footwear size is adjusted based on foot growth).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Carbajo et al. discloses
generating, using the at least one processor, a model of the portion of the user foot (3D foot profile, paragraph 0016);
comparing, using the at least one processor, the model of the portion of the user foot to the plurality of footwear datasets in the database (comparing 3D profile of a shoe with the 3D foot profile, paragraph 0016);
matching, using the at least one processor, a feature of the model to the customization of the configurable area of the footwear profile, the customization corresponding to the at least one of the foot measurement or the user input dataset satisfying the footwear feature threshold generated by the plurality of footwear datasets (3D profile of a shoe matches with the 3D foot profile to generate the first list of shoe recommendations for the user, paragraph 0016); and
adjusting, using the at least one processor, the configurable area of the footwear profile based on the customization (determining footwear size based on predicted foot growth, Abstract, lines 5-9, i.e., footwear size is adjusted based on foot growth).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Carbajo et al. discloses the database further includes a set of tendencies for footwear profiles (recommending footwear size based on predicted foot growth, Abstract), the set of tendencies generated based on the plurality of footwear datasets (the recommended footwear is based on the 3D footwear profile, paragraph 0016), the footwear datasets being representative of at least one of the body measurement (3d footwear profile being compared with 3D foot profile, paragraph 0016) and a tendency of the set of tendencies being representative of a correlation between the at least one of the body measurement [or the activity measurement] and a subset footwear dataset of the plurality of the footwear datasets having the at least one of the body measurement (recommended shoe is a match between 3D foot profile and corresponding 3D footwear profile, paragraph 0016), wherein the tendency corresponds to a customizable feature (recommended shoe is customized because it is a match between 3D foot profile and corresponding 3D footwear profile, paragraph 0016).
It is noted that the footwear datasets being representative of at least one of the activity measurement from other users is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Carbajo et al. discloses the body measurement includes at least one of a user foot length (paragraph 0037, lines 14-15).
It is noted that the body measurement includes at least one of an arch volume, a toe volume, an overall volume, a toe splay preference, and an arch preference are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Carbajo et al. discloses the user input dataset further includes user location information (paragraph 0048, lines 3-7).
It is noted that the user input dataset further includes environment preferences, physical limitations, purchase history, aesthetic preferences, and static or moving body metrics are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, it is noted that the activity measurement is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbajo et al. in view of Martin (US 2018/0154216).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Carbajo et al. discloses the user input dataset is acquired from a client device (102, Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (103, paragraph 0082, lines 1-6), wherein the scan is obtained from a scanning sensor (foot scanning 402a) communicatively coupled to the client device (302), the scanning sensor being configured to perform at least one of capture images (302) wherein the client device tracks a plurality of activities (paragraph 0081, lines 1-3), fitness activities (paragraph 0081, lines 1-3), and user movement (paragraph 0081, lines 1-3), wherein the scanning sensor further comprises at least one of a 3D scanner (foot scanning, 302).
It is noted that the scanning sensor being configured to perform at least one of obtain measurements is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
It is further noted that the scanning sensor further comprises at least one of a camera, or a LIDAR is alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Carbajo et al. does not disclose the client device tracks a plurality of activities including training logs, race results.
Martin discloses tracking a plurality of activities including training logs, race results (paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Carbajo et al. with tracking a plurality of activities including training logs, race results as disclosed by Martin for the purpose of training an athlete.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbajo et al. in view of Andon et al. (US 2019/0116915).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Carbajo et al. discloses generating using the at least one processor, a relationship between a user profile and the recommended footwear configuration (paragraph 0014, lines 2-9). Carbajo et al. discloses a relationship between the recommended footwear configuration and the corresponding user input, and user data (paragraph 0016). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to generate using the at least one processor, a user profile based on the recommended footwear configuration and corresponding user input and user data.
Carbajo et al. discloses presenting, using the at least one processor, the recommended footwear configuration based on the footwear profile (3D footwear profile, paragraph 0016) and the adjusted configurable area (3D foot profile, paragraph 0016, adjusted by foot growth).
Carbajo et al. does not disclose storing, using the at least one processor, the user profile in a database.
Andon et al. discloses storing, using the at least one processor, the user profile in a database (Abstract, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Carbajo et al. with a database as disclosed by Andon et al. for the purpose of storing a user profile.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Carbajo et al. discloses the configurable area of the footwear profile includes a combination of a footwear length (paragraph 0037, lines 14-15; foot-shoe matching dimensions, paragraph 0064, lines 14-16), a footwear width (paragraph 0037, lines 14-15; foot-shoe matching dimensions, paragraph 0064, lines 14-16).
Carbajo et al. does not disclose the footwear profile includes the combination of a footwear internal volume capacity, and a footwear volume distribution by area.
Andon et al. discloses a footwear profile includes a combination of a footwear internal volume capacity (profile of total volume of footwear, Fig. 1), and a footwear volume distribution by area (profile of volume of footwear per area in vertical direction, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Carbajo et al. with a combination of a footwear internal volume capacity, and a footwear volume distribution by area as suggested by Andon et al. for the purpose of generating a footwear profile.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/20240362698Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 26, 2026