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 non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 08/24/2026. Currently, claims 1-21 are pending. Claim 7 has been amended. Claim 21 is newly added.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for outfit/wardrobe recommendations.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“accessing…calendar data associated with a user to identify a planned travel occasion; (retrieving/obtaining calendar data)
obtaining…contextual factors for the planned travel occasion, the contextual factors including at least one of a destination location, a travel duration, and a predicted weather context for the destination location; (obtaining contextual data)
automatically identifying…a plurality of events associated with the planned travel occasion based on the calendar data; (identifying one or more events based on calendar data)
determining…a dressiness level for each of the plurality of events based on an event type and a style genre associated with the user; (determining dressiness level based event data)
generating…a suggested virtual outfit for each of the plurality of events based on the contextual factors and the dressiness level; and (generating outfit suggestion based on contextual data and dressiness level)
outputting…a graphical guide for packing a plurality of physical fashion items corresponding to the suggested virtual outfits, the graphical guide including instructions to optimize space within a luggage piece based on a weight and a material type of each physical fashion item” (presenting a packing guide of suggested outfit)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring/collecting data (calendar data, contextual data and event information), 2) determining travel events and event rules, 3) generating a result (outfit recommendation), and 4) displaying the result and additional information (packing instructions).
The above steps describe outfit/wardrobe recommendation process. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, 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. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing devices, to perform the limitations encompassing the identified abstract idea. The one or more computing devices represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the 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 practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The one or more computing devices represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2010/0191770 (Cho et al. – hereinafter Cho) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0351265 (Beaurepaire et al. – hereinafter Beaurepaire), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0288847 (Huttenberger).
Referring to claim 1, Cho discloses a method for generating contextual fashion recommendations performed by one or more computing devices, the method comprising:
accessing, by the one or more computing devices, calendar data associated with a user to identify a planned travel occasion; [See paragraphs 0037, 0042, 0043]
obtaining, by the one or more computing devices, contextual factors for the planned travel occasion, the contextual factors including at least one of a destination location, a travel duration, and a predicted weather context for the destination location; [See paragraphs 0037, 0042, 0043]
automatically identifying, by the one or more computing devices, a plurality of events associated with the planned travel occasion based on the calendar data; [See paragraphs 0037, 0042, 0043]
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a dressiness level for each of the plurality of events based on an event type and a style genre associated with the user; and [See paragraphs 0037, 0042, 0043, 0046, 0054]
generating, by the one or more computing devices, a suggested virtual outfit for each of the plurality of events based on the contextual factors and the dressiness level. [See paragraphs 0036-0039, 0043, 0044]
Cho does not explicitly disclose the limitation: outputting, by the one or more computing devices and for presentation in a user interface, a graphical guide for packing a plurality of physical fashion items corresponding to the suggested virtual outfits, the graphical guide including instructions to optimize space within a luggage piece based on a weight and a material type of each physical fashion item.
Beaurepaire teaches an analogous method with the limitation: generating, by the one or more computing devices and for presentation in a user interface, a packing instructions for packing a plurality of physical fashion items corresponding to the suggested virtual outfits, the instructions to optimize space within a luggage piece based on a weight and a material type of each physical fashion item. [See paragraphs 0031, 0053, 0070-0075]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Cho to have incorporated a packing assistant as in Beaurepaire with the motivation of providing item packing recommendations to a user. [See Cho paragraphs 0060-0072; Beaurepaire paragraphs 0030-0033]
In addition, Huttenberger teaches a method with the limitation: outputting, by the one or more computing devices and for presentation in a user interface, a graphical guide for packing a plurality of physical fashion items, the graphical guide including instructions to optimize space within a luggage piece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Cho and Beaurepaire to have incorporated a packing guide as in Huttenberger with the motivation of providing item packing recommendations to a user. [See Cho paragraphs 0060-0072; Huttenberger paragraphs 0007, 0034]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Cho, Beaurepaire and Huttenberger teaches method of claim 1, comprising:
calculating a packing weight for the luggage piece by aggregating a weight value associated with each fashion item model corresponding to the suggested virtual outfits; [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0032, 0038, 0051, 0052, 0067-0070, 0084-0086]
comparing the packing weight to a threshold weight limit associated with the planned travel occasion; and [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0032, 0038, 0051, 0052, 0067-0070, 0084-0086]
providing an alert in the user interface if the packing weight exceeds the threshold weight limit. [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0032, 0038, 0051, 0052, 0067-0070, 0084-0086]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Cho, Beaurepaire and Huttenberger discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining a packing methodology for each physical fashion item based on the fashion item model, wherein the packing methodology is one of a folding methodology or a rolling methodology; and adjusting the graphical guide to illustrate the determined packing methodology for each physical fashion item being placed in the luggage piece. [See Huttenberger paragraphs 0026, 0029, 0034]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Cho, Beaurepaire and Huttenberger discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
retrieving, from a third-party source, the predicted weather context for the destination location; and [See Cho paragraphs 0007, 0037]
automatically replacing at least one suggested virtual outfit with an alternative virtual outfit in response to a change in the predicted weather context. [See Cho paragraphs 0007, 0037]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Cho, Beaurepaire and Huttenberger discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
accessing usage data associated with the user to identify previously selected outfits for events similar to the plurality of events; and [See Cho paragraphs 0041-0044]
filtering the suggested virtual outfits to ensure each suggested virtual outfit is unique relative to the previously selected outfits. [See Cho paragraphs 0041-0044]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Cho, Beaurepaire and Huttenberger discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving a confirmation of a specific virtual outfit from the suggested virtual outfits; and [See Cho paragraphs 0036-0039, 0043, 0044]
marking each physical fashion item associated with the specific virtual outfit as unavailable for other events during the travel duration. [See Cho paragraphs 0036-0039, 0043, 0044]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Cho, Beaurepaire and Huttenberger discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the graphical guide includes a divided representation of the luggage piece, the divided representation identifying a specific zone for each of the physical fashion items to minimize a total volume of the suggested virtual outfits. [See Cho paragraphs 0031, 0053, 0070-0075; Huttenberger paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0025, Fig. 1]
Referring to claims 8-14, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-7, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Referring to claims 15-20, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-3 and 4-6, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Referring to claim 21, the combination of Cho, Beaurepaire and Huttenberger discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a packing methodology for each physical fashion item corresponding to the suggested virtual outfits based on a fashion item model, wherein the packing methodology is dynamically assigned as one of a folding methodology or a rolling methodology based on the material type of the physical fashion item; and [See Huttenberger paragraphs 0026, 0029, 0034]
calculating, by the one or more computing devices, specific spatial packing zones within a divided representation of a luggage piece to minimize a total volume of the suggested virtual outfits, wherein the graphical guide illustrates the determined packing methodology for each physical fashion item being placed into the calculated specific spatial packing zones of the divided representation of the luggage piece. [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0032, 0038, 0051, 0052, 0067-0070, 0084-0086; Huttenberger paragraphs 0026, 0029, 0034]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims 1-20
The limitations of claim 1 describe the steps of obtaining gathering information (calendar data, contextual data and event information) associated with a user’s planned travel. One or more outfits are recommended based on the gathered data and defined rules (event rules). A packing guide with instructions for packing the recommended outfits is displayed. The steps of the claimed invention describe a solution for providing outfit/wardrobe recommendation and packing guidance. The steps cover managing people/personal behavior, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements (as recited in the dependent claims) of the claimed invention provide for determining a packing spatial configuration for packing the suggested outfits. The determination involves dynamically calculating a volume-minimizing configuration based on one or more variables (outfits’ weight and material, folding methodology, luggage layout). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, calculating a volume-minimizing configuration based on one or more variables, describes mathematical calculations which falls under “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the courts have held “performing repetitive calculations (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values)” to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, “displaying the resulting packing configuration” simply describes presenting data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims recite additional elements in the form of one or more computing devices, to perform the limitations encompassing the identified abstract idea. The one or more computing devices represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 21
The additional elements describe assigning folding methodology to a suggested outfit based on material type, calculating spatial configuration based on luggage layout and suggested outfits volume, and displaying packing instruction. As discussed above for claims 1-20, the recited computer elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, calculating a volume-minimizing configuration based on one or more variables, describes mathematical calculations which falls under “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the courts have held “performing repetitive calculations (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values)” to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, “displaying the resulting packing configuration” simply describes presenting data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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