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 9/26/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category determination.
Claim 1: Machine (information processing apparatus). Falls within a statutory category.
Claim 11: Process (method). Falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify judicial exception(s) with citations to PEG groupings; the claims “recite” abstract ideas in multiple groupings:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial/marketing interactions; recommendations):
(claim 1): “an estimation section configured to estimate foot features of a target user from a purchase history of the target user” and “a provision section configured to provide a service according to the foot features of the target user.” These clauses describe using retail purchase history to make and provide size/fit recommendations (commercial interaction/marketing) to a user, which is a method of organizing human activity (PEG: commercial or legal interactions; sales/marketing).
(claim 4): “identify an allowable range of sizes … based on evaluation information …” and “generate first correlation information … and provide a service … based on the first correlation information.” These are steps of collecting user evaluations and correlating them to drive commercial recommendations.
Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind; observation/evaluation):
“estimate foot features … from a purchase history …,” “decides whether a certain size … is suitable,” and “provide a service according to the foot features …,” are inherently evaluative, inferential, and advisory actions that can be performed mentally given the same information (PEG: mental processes). The claims do not require more than generic computing to carry out these analyses and decisions.
Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships/models):
(claim 3): “an approximation curve that indicates the relationship between the foot features … and the features of the specific footwear …” expressly recites a mathematical model/curve (PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas).
(claims 5–6): “second correlation information” and “scores … indicating fitting degrees,” i.e., calculating and using mathematical correlations and computed scores.
Collecting, analyzing, correlating, modeling, scoring, estimating, deciding, and providing information/recommendations based on user purchase histories and evaluations are within the abstract idea categories recognized by the PEG (see also Electric Power Group v. Alstom; SAP v. InvestPic).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application; discuss any claimed technological improvement; address whether extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are present.
The claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The “at least one processor or circuit” is generic. The specification’s hardware description (CPU, RAM, HDD, NIC, display, etc.; see Spec. ¶¶ 20 & 176, FIG. 15) confirms use of conventional components. There is no recited improvement to computer functionality, no particular machine beyond a generic processor, no effecting of a transformation of an article, and no other meaningful limitation that meaningfully applies the abstract concepts.
The “service” is not a technological process; it is a result-oriented commercial output (size/fit recommendation or advisement). Steps such as “acquire evaluation information,” “generate relationship/correlation information,” “estimate foot features from purchase history,” “calculate scores,” “decide suitability,” and “provide service” are data collection/analysis and presentation activities—typical extra-solution activity limited to the field of retail footwear fitting. Field-of-use limitations (footwear commerce) and instructing to apply the abstract analyses within that context do not integrate the exception into a practical application (Oct. 2019 Update).
The claims merely apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components in a commercial context and therefore do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more.
Additional elements: “at least one processor or circuit,” storage sections, servers/terminals (in the spec), and routine computer functions (communication, acquisition, generation, decision, provision).
These are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) computer components performing their ordinary functions of receiving, storing, processing, and outputting data. The specification affirmatively describes a conventional computing environment (CPU 1100, RAM 1200, ROM 1300, HDD 1400, NIC 1500, I/O 1600; Spec. ¶¶ 176–181, FIG. 15) and generic networked servers/clients (Spec. FIGs. 1, 3, 4, 7). There is no claimed unconventional architecture, no non-generic data structure, and no new hardware that changes computer operation.
The correlation generation, approximation curve, and score calculation are presented at a high level without reciting a particular non-conventional algorithmic technique or a specific improvement to computer functioning. The claimed mathematical modeling (claim 3) is itself the abstract idea (PEG: mathematical concepts) and cannot supply the inventive concept.
Under Berkheimer, absent evidence of non-conventionality, routine generic computer implementation does not constitute “significantly more.” The record, including the specification’s admissions of generic components, supports a finding that the additional elements are WURC.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion: Eligible/ineligible under § 101.
Claims 1–11, as presented, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. They recite abstract ideas (commercial recommendations/organizing human activity; mental processes; mathematical concepts) and do not integrate those ideas into a practical application. The additional elements are generic computing components and WURC.
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 limitations are:
“first generation section,” “estimation section,” “provision section,” “identification section,” “second generation section” in claims 1-9.
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.
Although the claims do not use the word “means,” the nonce term “section” coupled solely with functional language does not connote sufficient structure to a POSITA. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The specification further supports § 112(f) application by expressly stating that “the ‘section’, ‘module’, or ‘unit’ … can be read as a ‘means’ or ‘circuit’.” See Spec. ¶¶ [0186]–[0187]. Accordingly, each “section … configured to” limitation invokes § 112(f).
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
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 1-10 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 limitation “first generation section,” “estimation section,” “provision section,” “identification section,” “second generation section” 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 (i.e., a definite algorithm for a general-purpose computer) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 1, “first generation section configured to generate relationship information that indicates a relationship between foot features … and features of specific footwear purchased …”
Function: generate “relationship information,” including, per claim 3, “an approximation curve” indicating the relationship (claims 1 & 3).
Insufficiency: The specification describes plotting results and an “approximation curve” (Spec. ¶¶ [0129]–[0133], FIG. 13) but does not disclose a definite algorithm to generate that curve (e.g., model form, fitting routine, objective function, constraints, outlier handling, convergence criteria). Recitation of a desired result (an approximation curve) without the steps of computation is insufficient algorithmic structure for § 112(f) purposes. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334–38; Noah, 675 F.3d at 1318–19.
Claims 4-6, “second generation section configured to generate first correlation information …” and “second generation section generates second correlation information …” and “scores … indicating fitting degrees …”
Function: generate correlation information and a model that outputs “scores” (fitting degrees), used for suitability decisions (claims 4-6).
Insufficiency: The specification refers to a “model” (e.g., “sigmoid function”) and “scores” with thresholds (Spec. ¶¶ [0048]–[0050], [0145]–[0148]) but fails to disclose the algorithm to generate or train the model (e.g., feature vector definition, learning/training procedure, optimization/loss function, parameter estimation, calibration steps). High-level references to a function class (sigmoid) do not constitute an algorithm. See EON Corp. v. AT&T Mobility, 785 F.3d 616, 623–25 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (functional description not enough); Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384–85.
Claim 1, “estimation section configured to estimate foot features of a target user from a purchase history … based on the relationship information …”
Function: estimate foot features from purchase history using the relationship information (claim 1).
Insufficiency: The specification states that the estimation section “obtains relationship information … and estimates the foot features … based on the size of the specific footwear purchased” (Spec. ¶¶ [0140]–[0141]), but does not disclose a definite algorithm for performing the inverse mapping (e.g., interpolation/extrapolation method, uncertainty handling, multi-valued mappings). Without a stepwise computational procedure, the structure is inadequate under § 112(f). See Noah, 675 F.3d at 1318–19.
Claim 4, “identification section configured to identify an allowable range of sizes … based on evaluation information …”
Function: identify allowable size range from evaluations.
Comment: The specification provides some procedural detail (e.g., set upper/lower limits upon “bad” evaluations, evaluate sizes in ascending/descending order, right/left evaluations, stopping conditions) (Spec. ¶¶ [0109]–[0121]). This may be sufficient corresponding structure. However, this element falls with the independent claim if the above MPF elements remain indefinite.
Claim 1,3 “provision section configured to provide a service according to the foot features …”
Function: provide a service (e.g., transmit recommendations).
Comment: The spec identifies a controller and communication interface that transmit messages (Spec. ¶¶ [0082]–[0083], [0149]–[0150]), which likely suffices as corresponding structure for this narrow function.
Conclusion Because the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (i.e., algorithms) for at least the “first generation section,” “second generation section,” and “estimation section,” claims 1–10 are indefinite under § 112(b). Dependent claims 2–10 fall with their respective base claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazmanyan (US 2011/0295711).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11: Mazmanyan teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor or circuit programmed to:
a first generation section configured to generate relationship information that indicates a relationship between foot features of a plurality of users and features of specific footwear purchased by the plurality of users (Mazmanyan builds and uses a “reference data set” of user profiles, apparel features, and fit assessments, establishing relationships between user features (including body/foot features) and apparel/footwear features “Reference data set” with user body profiles, purchase/apparel info, fit assessments. Relationships between user features and apparel features are constructed for fit prediction,¶¶ 0033, 0042, 0044, 0054-0061, 0066-0075; Figs. 1, 4, 5A/B, 6);
an estimation section configured to estimate foot features of a target user from a purchase history of the target user, based on the relationship information generated by the first generation section (The system predicts fit indicators for a user based on their purchase/fit history and the reference dataset, using collaborative filtering and similarity measures, ¶¶ 0033, 0044, 0054-0075; Figs. 2, 4, 5A/B, 6); and
a provision section configured to provide a service according to the foot features of the target user estimated by the estimation section (The system provides size recommendations and/or fit assessments to the user based on the estimated fit, ¶¶ 0033, 0054, 0096, 0105; Figs. 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 2: Mazmanyan teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first generation section generates the relationship information for each of the specific footwear, and the estimation section estimates the foot features of the target user based on the specific footwear purchased by the target user and a size thereof (“reference records” include specific apparel, size, fit assessments; recommendations are model-specific ¶¶ [0033], [0044], [0054]-[0061]).
Regarding Claim 3: Mazmanyan teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first generation section generates, as the relationship information, an approximation curve that indicates the relationship between the foot features of the plurality of users and the features of the specific footwear purchased by the plurality of users (Mazmanyan uses correlation coefficients, collaborative filtering, graphs for relationships between fit and user/apparel features ¶¶ [0061]-[0075], Figs. 4, 5A/B).
Regarding Claim 4: Mazmanyan teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an identification section configured to identify an allowable range of sizes of specific footwear that is allowable for a specific user based on evaluation information on a plurality of sizes of the specific footwear evaluated by the specific user; and a second generation section configured to generate first correlation information that indicates a first correlation between the allowable range identified by the identification section and a foot size of the specific user, wherein the provision section is configured to provide a service according to the foot features of the target user based on the first correlation information generated by the second generation section (system identifies suitable sizes based on predicted fit indicators and user preferences; can compare predicted fit to thresholds ¶¶ [0054]-[0061], [0089], [0096]).
Regarding Claim 5: Mazmanyan teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the second generation section generates second correlation information that indicates a second correlation between evaluations by the plurality of users who have purchased the specific footwear, as the specific user, and foot sizes of the plurality of users, and the identification section identifies the allowable range of the sizes of the specific footwear estimated to be allowable for each of the plurality of users based on the second correlation information generated by the second generation section (collaborative filtering uses similarities between users and their fit indicators, including user profile/body data ¶¶ [0061]-[0075], [0083], [0084]).
Regarding Claim 6: Mazmanyan teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the identification section identifies the allowable range based on scores that are calculated based on the second correlation information and indicate fitting degrees of feet of the plurality of users with respect to the plurality of sizes (calculates predicted fit indicators (scores), compares to thresholds to recommend sizes ¶¶ [0061]-[0075], [0089]).
Regarding Claim 7: Mazmanyan teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the provision section provides the service based on a decision result of whether a certain size of the specific footwear is suitable for the foot size of the target user (recommendations are based on predicted fit indicators and comparison to suitability thresholds ¶¶ [0054]-[0061], [0089]).
Regarding Claim 8: Mazmanyan teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the identification section identifies the allowable range based on the evaluation information that the specific user has evaluated by selecting from among evaluations based on a predetermined evaluation criterion (users provide fit assessments on a scale (e.g., -5 to +5) when trying on apparel ¶¶ [0035]-[0037], [0044], [0083]).
Regarding Claim 9: Mazmanyan teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the identification section identifies the allowable range based on the evaluation information on the plurality of sizes specified and evaluated in a predetermined order (system can predict fit for a range of sizes, may use central size and evaluate upward/downward ¶¶ [0087], [0088]).
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:
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazmanyan in view of Bright (US 2011/0099122).
Mazmanyan substantially discloses the claimed invention, but doesn’t appear to teach the use of expert/salesperson fit evaluations for new products to supplement user fit data.
However, Bright teaches, wherein the specific user is a user who has expertise in sales of footwear including the specific footwear (Item data and expert evaluations may be used to supplement data, including fit testing by experts. ¶¶ [0025], [0035], [0048], [0049]).
It would have been obvious to combine the known advantages of machine learning models (as in Bright) with Mazmanyan’s collaborative filtering system to automate and improve fit predictions, especially as both references address similar technical problems and use overlapping types of data.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the collaborative filtering and user feedback system of Mazmanyan with the machine learning model generation and expert data input of Bright, because both address the same problem (personalized fit prediction) and Bright explicitly teaches the use of advanced modeling and expert data to improve prediction accuracy. The combination would predictably yield a system with improved flexibility and accuracy in fit recommendations, especially in cases of sparse user history or new products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627