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 08/03/2026. Currently, claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 15 have been amended. Claims 21-24 are newly added. No cancelled claims.
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 1-24 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.
Claims 1-24 recite method, system and computer program product for recommending outfits based on database information.
Exemplary claim 1, recites in part,
“enabling data exchange between the first computing system and the second computing system via the communications network;
receiving, from at least one of the first computing system or the second computing system, updated data associated with one or more of the unique electronic identifiers;
detecting, based on the updated data, a change to physical state information indicating at least one of a physical location state, a cleaning status, or a wear frequency of the single physical instance of the physical fashion item;
synchronizing at least a portion of the first data store and the second data store based at least in part on the updated data such that the fashion item data is synchronized across the first computing system and the second computing system, thereby maintaining consistency of the physical state information; and
generating output data based at least in part on the synchronized fashion item data associated with the unique electronic identifiers received from both the first data store and the second data store, wherein generating the output data comprises compiling a virtual outfit recommendation that removes the single physical instance of the physical fashion item from possible selection based on the synchronized physical state information indicating an unavailable location state or cleaning status, thereby enforcing a physical availability constraint on the single physical instance."
The claim limitations recite the steps of, 1) receiving and sending physical fashion item information, 2) receiving user input, 3) updating physical fashion item based on received user input, and 4) generating an output (outfit recommendation) for display based on updated physical fashion item.
The claim limitations describe the process of recommending outfits based on updated database information. The claimed steps encompass “Mental Processes” (A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process), enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, the above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), in that they recite managing personal behavior. The BRI of these limitations includes managing human outfit recommendation based on defined rules. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element recites one or more processors, first and second computing system and communications network, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The one or more processors represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “storing fashion item data in a first data” and “storing fashion item data in a second data store” represent storing data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See 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.
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. “Storing and retrieving information in memory” has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, the computing elements (one or more processors, first and second computing systems and communications network) 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 9 and 15 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 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, 23 and 24 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), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0379426 (Guo et al. – hereinafter Guo).
Referring to claim 1, Cho discloses a system for managing fashion item data across a plurality of data sources, the system comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for maintaining data consistency across the first data store and the second data store, the operations including: [See paragraphs 0017-0020]
enabling data exchange between the first computing system and the second computing system via the communications network; [See paragraphs 0047, 0053, 0061-0065]
receiving, from at least one of the first computing system or the second computing system, updated data associated with one or more of the unique electronic identifiers; [See paragraphs 0035, 0066-0073]
detecting, based on the updated data, a change to physical state information indicating at least one of a physical location state, a cleaning status, or a wear frequency of the single physical instance of the physical fashion item; [See paragraphs 0030, 0041, 0042, 0044-0046]
synchronizing at least a portion of the first data store and the second data store based at least in part on the updated data such that the fashion item data is synchronized across the first computing system and the second computing system, thereby maintaining consistency of the physical state information; and [See paragraphs 0035, 0044,-0046, 0061-0064, Figs. 6-7B]
generating output data based at least in part on the synchronized fashion item data associated with the unique electronic identifiers received from both the first data store and the second data store, wherein generating the output data comprises compiling a virtual outfit recommendation that remove the single physical instance of the physical fashion item from possible selection based on the synchronized physical state information indication unavailable location state or cleaning status, thereby enforcing a physical availability constraint on the single physical instance. [See paragraphs 0030, 0035, 0044, 0061-0064, Figs. 6-7B – The virtual closet tracks fashion items that are dirty or unavailable to be worn, thereby removing them from consideration during outfit recommendation(s).]
Cho does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
a first computing system associated with a first data store containing fashion item data, the fashion item data corresponding to physical fashion items and associated with unique electronic identifiers, wherein each unique electronic identifier maps a unique digital record to a single physical instance of a physical fashion item;
a second computing system associated with a second data store containing fashion item data; and
a communications network connecting the first computing system and the second computing system.
Guo teaches a system with the limitations:
a first computing system associated with a first data store containing fashion item data, the fashion item data corresponding to physical fashion items and associated with unique electronic identifiers, wherein each unique electronic identifier maps a unique digital record to a single physical instance of a physical fashion item; [See paragraphs 0010, 0014, 0015, 0028, 0029, 0039, 0042]
a second computing system associated with a second data store containing fashion item data; and [See paragraphs 0010, 0014, 0015, 0028, 0029, 0039, 0042]
a communications network connecting the first computing system and the second computing system. [See paragraphs 0020, 0024, 0026, Fig. 1]
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 shared inventory configuration as in Guo with the motivation of facilitating inventory collaboration between users. [See Cho paragraphs 0047, 0053, 0061-0066; Guo paragraphs 0009, 0010]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the updated data includes at least one of event data or multi-dimensional attribute data. [See Cho paragraphs 0030, 0044-0046; Guo paragraphs 0043, 0083, 0084]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the updated data includes event data, and the event data reflects state information related to one or more fashion items corresponding to the unique electronic identifiers. [See Cho paragraphs 0030, 0044-0046]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the state information includes at least one of a location state within a physical wardrobe, a cleaning status, or a wear frequency. [See Cho paragraphs 0030, 0044-0046]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the system of claim 1, wherein enabling the data exchange comprises providing shared visibility of the fashion item data across the first data store and the second data store, such that the second computing system is configured to access the fashion item data within the first data store and the first computing system is configured to access the fashion item data within the second data store. [See Cho paragraphs 0047, 0053, 0061-0065]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform operations further including generating the output data by aggregating data received across the first data store and the second data store. [See Cho paragraphs 0055, 0061-0065]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the aggregated data includes at least a quantity on hand value for a specific physical fashion item and a environmental context for a physical location associated with the specific physical fashion item. [See Cho paragraphs 0055, 0061-0065]
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the fashion item data comprises electronic fashion item models, each electronic fashion item model representing a digital record of a physical fashion item; [See Cho paragraphs 0029-0031]
the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform operations further including:
generating a unique digital record for a particular fashion item model, the unique digital record including a timestamped log of a usage history and a conveyance type associated with the particular fashion item model; and [See Cho paragraphs 0030, 0035, 0041, 0044, 0060-0062, 0064, 0065]
adjusting a recommendation for a user based on the unique digital record, such that the recommendation includes an availability status of a physical fashion item within the first data store and the second data store. [See Cho paragraphs 0030, 0035, 0041-0044, 0060-0062, 0064, 0065]
Referring to claims 9-14, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claims 15-20, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 21, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein:
the instructions cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations further comprising receiving an event selection; and [See Guo paragraphs 0083, 0084]
compiling the virtual outfit recommendation further comprises identifying an aggregation of common electronic tags among event tags associated with the event selection and fashion item tags associated with the synchronized fashion item data. [See paragraphs 0083, 0084 - Outfit recommendations may be based on one or more aggregation of fashion items associated with a particular type of event.]
Referring to claims 23 and 24, they recite similar limitation as set forth in claim 21, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Guo, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 15, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0215116 (Siddique et al. – hereinafter Siddique).
Referring to claim 22, the combination of Cho and Guo discloses the system of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
wherein compiling the virtual outfit comprises:
mapping a fashion item model to a human form model, determining a relative spacing between a first plurality of points of the human form model and a second plurality of points of the fashion item model; and
applying a linear and non-linear warping adjustment to the fashion item model based on the determined relative spacing to fit the fashion item model to the human form model.
Siddique teaches a system with the limitations:
mapping a fashion item model to a human form model, determining a relative spacing between a first plurality of points of the human form model and a second plurality of points of the fashion item model; and [See paragraphs 0145, 0148, 0162, 0228]
applying a linear and non-linear warping adjustment to the fashion item model based on the determined relative spacing to fit the fashion item model to the human form model. [See paragraphs 0114, 0201]
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 Guo to have incorporated a 3D user/item model feature as in Siddique with the motivation of providing an interactive and collaborative virtual closet platform. [See Siddique paragraph 0104]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 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.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim describes receiving physical fashion item update data, detecting a change in stored physical fashion item information based on the received update data, updating physical fashion item information stored in a database based on the received update data, and compiling outfit recommendation based on the updated physical fashion item information. The claim limitations describe the process of recommending outfits based on updated database information. The claimed steps encompass “Mental Processes” (A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process), enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). In addition, the claimed steps fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), in that they recite managing human outfit recommendation based on defined rules. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The recited additional elements of one or more processors, first and second computing system and communications network represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The “relational database operation” receives update data associated with a physical fashion item, and updates physical fashion item information stored in a database based on the received update data. The courts have recognized “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. using the Internet to gather data” and “electronic recordkeeping (e.g. updating an activity log)” as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
In addition, “filtering and constraining” the output generation process simply limits the outfit recommendation to available physical fashion item based on the updated physical fashion item database information. In other words, the outfit recommendation is based on availability of physical fashion item as defined by the updated physical fashion item database information.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Similarly, the claimed invention uses computer technology to provide a business solution of recommending outfits based on updated database information. The recited computer elements receive physical fashion item update data, update a physical fashion item database based on the received data, and recommend outfits in accordance with the updated physical fashion item data. The claimed invention fails to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
In APPLE, INC. v. AMERANTH, INC., the court held that the “synchronizing” feature was insignificant post-solution activities that do not support the invention having an “an inventive concept.” The “synchronizing” feature synchronized data (second menu) between the data storage device connected to the central processing unit and at least one other computing device.” In the instant application, the feature “synchronizing step” simply updates physical fashion item data between two databases. Update data associated with physical fashion item is received and updated within a first computing system. The updated physical fashion item information is transmitted to and updates the database of a second computing system. As in APPLE, INC. v. AMERANTH, INC., the “synchronizing” feature amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection(s)
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Cho in view of Bhogal et al. (US 2009/0204628 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added amendments, and have been addressed in the current rejection.
In addition, the system of Cho teaches that the Virtual Closet may associate each fashion item with metadata that defines the attributes of each fashion item. The metadata may include laundry status indicating whether the clothing is in the laundry and thus may be unavailable for being worn. See paragraph 0030.
In addition, Cho teaches that the Virtual Closet system can keep track of what fashion items are dirty or are in the laundry (e.g., and thus may be unavailable for wearing). The outfit recommendations can then be generated by only creating outfits that include fashion items that are currently clean. The Virtual Closet system can determine what fashion items are dirty by, for example, taking a picture of the user when they leave the room, sensing fashion items that are removed from the physical closet, receiving an input from the user indicating which fashion items are in the laundry, or through any other suitable manner. See paragraph 0044.
Accordingly, the system of Cho teaches detecting changes to a physical location or cleaning status to subsequently remove a single physical instance from possible selection in an outfit recommendation to enforce a physical availability constraint.
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