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 .
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 19, 34, and 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 19, 34, and 35 recite a method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Accordingly, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception
Claims 19, 34, and 35 recite limitations including acquiring a clothing image, sending the clothing image to a server, determining an identity associated with the device sending the clothing image, determining a target requirement based on the identity, and selectively recommending a washing and care procedure or a clothing matching scheme based on the clothing image and the target requirement.
These limitations describe the collection of information (acquiring a clothing image), analysis of the information (determining identity and target requirement), and presentation of results (recommending washing procedures or clothing matching schemes). Such activity constitutes a mental process and a method of organizing human activity, which are categories of abstract ideas identified in the USPTO eligibility guidance. In particular, determining clothing care procedures or matching clothing combinations based on observed clothing items is a task that could be performed mentally or manually by a person.
Accordingly, claims 19, 34, and 35 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration Into a Practical Application
The claims further recite a household device, a server, and communication between the household device and the server. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely perform generic computer functions such as acquiring data, transmitting data, and processing information.
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technological field. Rather, the computer components are used as tools to perform the abstract idea of analyzing clothing information and providing recommendations. The claims do not recite any specific improvement in image processing technology, networking technology, or computer functionality.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The household device and server are generic computing components that perform routine and conventional functions such as receiving image data, transmitting data, identifying a user or device, and generating recommendations.
Using generic computer components to collect, analyze, and present information does not constitute an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Claims 19, 34, and 35 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting clothing information, analyzing the information, and providing clothing care or matching recommendations. The additional elements recited in the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely implement the abstract idea using generic computing components performing routine functions.
Accordingly, claims 19, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
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) 19-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj (WO2014/169260), in view of Orlov (US 2014/0180864).
Claims 19, 34-35 recites:
“A control method for a smart home system, wherein the smart home system comprises a household device and a server, and the household device is capable of communicating with the server”
Bhardwaj discloses:
para [0027]
“FIG. 1 illustrates a network diagram depicting a network architecture of a system… including a client-server architecture configured for exchanging data over a network.”
“acquiring, by the household device, a current clothing image”
Bhardwaj discloses:
para [0017]
“FIG. 3, the first (leftmost) column 300 shows images taken of a user’s wardrobe contents (such as photos taken by a user’s device, e.g., smart phone, tablet, and the like).”
“sending, by the household device, the current clothing image to the server”
Bhardwaj discloses:
para [0021]
“The user may upload a color picture from a client device… to the networked system.”
“acquiring, by the server, an ID account number of the household device which sends the current clothing image”
Bhardwaj discloses communication between client devices and the networked system but does not explicitly disclose identifying the device via an ID account number.
para [0027]
“The system 100 includes client devices 110, 112 communicating with the networked system 102.”
Orlov discloses:
para [0016]
“The clothes shopping recommendation may be based on a clothing profile that comprises personal style information… and measurement information of the user.”, thus, It would have been obvious to incorporate user identification/account information into the system of Bhardwaj in order to personalize clothing recommendations, as taught by Orlov.
“determining, by the server, an identity of the household device which sends the current clothing image, according to the ID account number”
Orlov discloses:
para [0018]
“A style definition application… determines personal clothing style preferences of a user.”
Determining identity based on stored user profile information would have been an obvious implementation for personalizing the recommendations of Bhardwaj.
“determining, by the server, a target requirement according to the identity”
Orlov discloses:
para [0031]
“The user may thus specify or provide one or more objectives or filters that are to be applied to the recommendation.”
Applying such user objectives within the system of Bhardwaj would have been an obvious method for tailoring recommendations.
“selectively recommending, by the server, a washing and care procedure or a clothing matching scheme on the basis of the target requirement and according to the current clothing image.”
Bhardwaj discloses:
para [0052]
“The system may be able to recommend clothing based on the user’s wardrobe… recommendations may be selected from an inventory of clothing of various styles.”
Combining the user profile recommendation techniques of Orlov with the wardrobe-image analysis of Bhardwaj would have predictably improved recommendation relevance.
Claim 20, recites determining washing procedures based on device type.
Bhardwaj discloses clothing recommendation based on wardrobe information.
para [0052]
“The system may be able to recommend clothing based on the user’s wardrobe…”
Bhardwaj does not explicitly disclose washing and care procedures.
Orlov discloses clothing recommendations based on clothing attributes.
para [0016]
“The recommendation engine may automatically process inventory data about clothes inventories… to identify and recommend articles of clothing.”
Extending clothing recommendation systems to include care instructions would have been an obvious modification because clothing attributes such as material commonly determine washing procedures.
Claims 21–31, recite additional features including clothing matching recommendations, analyzing top and bottom clothing combinations, determining color compatibility, calculating similarity between clothing items, comparing clothing images to database entries, and computing matching scores.
Bhardwaj discloses:
para [0046]
“Clothes in a wardrobe may indicate the person’s fashion inclination… Such information can be used to recommend clothing.”
Orlov discloses scoring relationships between clothing items.
para [0037]
“A match score… indicates how well the recommended articles in a recommended outfit are related.”
Incorporating scoring techniques into the clothing recommendation system of Bhardwaj would have been a predictable improvement for ranking outfit recommendations.
Claims 32–33
Claims 32–33 recite identifying clothing attributes, comparing clothing images with historical clothing images, and determining similarity scores.
Bhardwaj discloses:
para [0052]
“The same color histogram technique may be used to extract the color signature of inventory items.”
Orlov discloses recognition of clothing items from image data.
para [0021]
“The system may process the image data to recognize particular articles of clothing and associated style attributes.”
Using similarity comparison between clothing images and stored clothing data would have been an obvious technique in an image-based recommendation system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657 cret