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 07/31/2026. Currently, claims 21-44 are pending. Claims 39-44 are newly added. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. No claims have been amended.
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 21-44 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 21 recites in part,
“receiving electronic input data defining an event requiring a physical relocation of one or more physical fashion items; (receiving user input)
identifying, based on the electronic input data, one or more electronic fashion item models associated with the event; (selecting one or more fashion item)
determining a transport container type for the event, the transport container type being selected from among a plurality of transport container types based on the event; (selecting a transport container)
determining a packing configuration for the one or more physical fashion items within the transport container type, the packing configuration comprising a spatial arrangement of the one or more physical fashion items calculated based on the physical attributes defined in the identified one or more electronic fashion item models; and (generating packing guidance)
causing a user interface to display a presentation of the determined packing configuration for the transport container type.” (presenting packing guidance)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) receiving user input (event data), 2) identifying fashion data item and transport container based on event data, 3) generating packing guidance/recommendation, and 4) displaying the result (packing guidance/recommendation).
The above steps describe outfit/wardrobe recommendation packing process. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior) 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 and memory device, 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).
In addition, the claim recites the additional elements of “storing a plurality of electronic fashion item models” and “one or more computing devices interacting with the hardware memory device and execute stored instructions”. The steps represent storing and transmitting/receiving 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. The one or more computing devices and hardware memory represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, “storing and retrieving data”, as well as “transmitting/obtaining information over a network” have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
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 21 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 27 and 33 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 21, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 22-26, 28-32 and 34-38 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 21-39, 41 and 43 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. 2014/0351265 (Beaurepaire et al. – hereinafter Beaurepaire).
Referring to claim 21, Cho discloses a system, comprising:
a hardware memory device storing a plurality of electronic fashion item models, each electronic fashion item model comprising physical attributes of a specific physical fashion item including at least a weight and a material type; [See paragraphs 0017-0020, 0029, 0030, 0034, 0035-0037 – Fashion item data may include color, style, material, date of purchase, or any other suitable fashion item data. The Virtual Closet provides outfit recommendations based on fashion items available to a user. An outfit recommendation may be based on season or data (e.g., a heavy sweater and wool hat can be recommended in January). The outfit recommendation includes fashion items attributes: weight and material type.]
one or more computing devices configured to interact with the hardware memory device and execute stored instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations including: [See paragraphs 0017-0020, 0026, 0027]
receiving electronic input data defining an event requiring a physical relocation of one or more physical fashion items; and [See paragraphs 0037, 0041-0043]
identifying, based on the electronic input data, one or more electronic fashion item models associated with the event. [See paragraphs 0037, 0041-0043]
Cho does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
determining a transport container type for the event, the transport container type being selected from among a plurality of transport container types based on the event;
determining a packing configuration for the one or more physical fashion items within the transport container type, the packing configuration comprising a spatial arrangement of the one or more physical fashion items calculated based on the physical attributes defined in the identified one or more electronic fashion item models; and
causing a user interface to display a presentation of the determined packing configuration for the transport container type.
Beaurepaire teaches a system with the limitations:
determining a transport container type for the event, the transport container type being selected from among a plurality of transport container types based on the event; [See paragraphs 0033, 0046, 0051-0053, 0058, 0062, 0063, 0072, 0074]
determining a packing configuration for the one or more physical fashion items within the transport container type, the packing configuration comprising a spatial arrangement of the one or more physical fashion items calculated based on the physical attributes defined in the identified one or more electronic fashion item models; and [See paragraphs 0030-0032, 0038, 0042, 0043, 0046, 0053, 0071, 0074, 0075, 0077, 0078]
causing a user interface to display a presentation of the determined packing configuration for the transport container type. [See paragraph 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]
Referring to claim 22, the combination of Cho and Beaurepaire discloses the system of claim 21, wherein determining the packing configuration comprises determining the packing configuration based on at least a fashion item weight value and a container capacity value associated with the transport container type. [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0031-0033, 0058, 0062, 0063, 0072, 0074]
Referring to claim 23, the combination of Cho and Beaurepaire discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the instructions cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations further including initiating the event in response to a user request received via the user interface, the user request indicating a request to relocate the one or more physical fashion items, and wherein the transport container type is a physical enclosure selected based on the user request. [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0032, 0033, 0036, 0037, 0043, 0053]
Referring to claim 24, the combination of Cho and Beaurepaire discloses the system of claim 21, wherein: the instructions cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations further including determining, for each physical fashion item model, a packing method based on the electronic fashion item model; and causing a user interface to display the presentation of the determined packing configuration comprises adjusting a graphical guide to illustrate a packing method for each physical fashion item being arranged in the transport container type. [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0030-0032, 0042, 0043, 0053, 0071, 0074, 0075, 0077, 0078]
Referring to claim 25, the combination of Cho and Beaurepaire discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the user interface includes a representation of the transport container type identifying a specific spatial zone for each of the one or more electronic fashion item models, the specific spatial zone being determined based on a set of dimensional points associated with a physical fashion item and stored in the hardware memory device, and wherein the instructions cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations further including sequentially displaying the packing configuration for each physical fashion item being arranged within the identified specific spatial zones. [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0030-0032, 0042, 0043, 0053, 0071, 0074, 0075, 0077, 0078]
Referring to claim 26, the combination of Cho and Beaurepaire discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the instructions cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations further including: generating a packing record for the one or more physical fashion items associated with the event, the packing record including item data corresponding to the one or more electronic fashion item models; and transmitting the packing record to at least one destination according to the event. [See Beaurepaire paragraphs 0032, 0043, 0053, 0075, 0076, 0078]
Referring to claims 27-32, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 21-26, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Referring to claims 33-38, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 21-26, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Referring to claim 39, the combination of Cho and Beaurepaire discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the spatial arrangement of the one or more physical fashion items is calculated to provide a more compact fit for the physical fashion items within the transport container type. [See Beaurepaire paragraph 0077 – The system may recommend a package (container) with a more compact spatial item arrangement instead of a loosely packed package (container).]
Referring to claims 41 and 43, they recite similar limitation as set forth in claim 39, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 40, 42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Beaurepaire, as applied to claims 21, 27 and 33, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0288847 (Huttenberger).
Referring to claim 40, the combination of Cho and Beaurepaire discloses the system of claim 21 above. The combination does not explicitly discloses the limitation: wherein the spatial arrangement identifies one or more specific packing zones within the transport container type and associates the one or more physical fashion items with the one or more specific packing zones, and wherein the presentation displayed on the user interface graphically illustrates a folding or rolling procedure for each of the physical fashion items and placement of each of the physical fashion items into an associated specific packing zone of the one or more specific packing zones.
Huttenberger teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the spatial arrangement identifies one or more specific packing zones within the transport container type and associates the one or more physical fashion items with the one or more specific packing zones, and wherein the presentation displayed on the user interface graphically illustrates a folding or rolling procedure for each of the physical fashion items and placement of each of the physical fashion items into an associated specific packing zone of the one or more specific packing zones. [See paragraph 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 the combined teachings of Cho and Beaurepaire to have incorporated a packing assistant as in Huttenberger with the motivation of providing item packing guidance to a user. [See Cho paragraphs 0060-0072; Beaurepaire paragraphs 0030-0033; Huttenberger paragraphs 0006, 0007]
Referring to claims 42 and 44, they recite similar limitation as set forth in claim 40, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-38 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 the processing recommending a packing configuration for fashion items. The claim limitations describe the steps of determining an optimal configuration for packing items in a container based on one or more item attributes and displaying the result (packing guidance/recommendation). The claim limitations encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claimed invention retrieves one or more fashion items associated with physical attributes. The physical attributes of the fashion items are used to determine an optimal arrangement of the fashion items with a container. The claimed invention uses the recited computer-related elements as a tool for performing the limitations encompassing the abstract idea. In addition, limiting the application of the abstract idea to packing fashion items (weight and material attributes) for travel is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-38 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Cho (US 2010/0191770 A1) in view of Beaurepaire (US 2014/0351265 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The system of Cho teaches that the Virtual Closet may include a catalogue of fashion items owned by a user. Each fashion item may be associated with metadata that defines the attributes of that fashion item. For example, the metadata may define attributes such as the fashion item's color, type (e.g., skirt, long-sleeved shirt, necklace, or any other suitable type description), material (e.g., silk), brand, style (e.g., formal, casual, or other suitable style), fit (e.g., loose clothing, tight clothing, or any other suitable fit), season (e.g., winter clothing), weather (e.g., appropriate for rainy weather), date of purchase, laundry status (e.g., whether the clothing is in the laundry and thus may be unavailable for being worn), or any other suitable attributes. Paragraph 0030.
Cho teaches that the Virtual Closet system can provide recommendations of outfits. Generally, an outfit can be created such that the color, style, or other attributes of the fashion items in the outfit are complementary to one another, or otherwise produce an outfit that is pleasing to view. See paragraph 0036.
Cho teaches that the Virtual Closet system can provide outfit recommendations based on a particular events. For example, the Virtual Closet system can be coupled to a weather server (e.g., through communication circuitry 110) and can receive weather information… As another example, the Virtual Closet system may be coupled to a calendar and can provide recommendations based on the season or date (e.g., a heavy sweater and wool hat can be recommended in January). Paragraph 0037.
Accordingly, the system of Cho provide outfit recommendations based on events, weather information, and attributes of the fashion items. An outfit recommendation may based on season or data (e.g., a heavy sweater and wool hat can be recommended in January). The outfit recommendation includes fashion items attributes: weight and material type.
Thus, the system of Cho, at least teaches or suggests, fashion weight attribute or using such as attribute in outfit recommendation(s).
Beaurepaire teaches that the system may compare the physical property value against threshold criteria, after determining physical property values associated with an item. For example, the 20 kg limit set by airline regulations may serve as a weight limit. Comparing a 6 kg item again the 20 kg limit may allow the system 100 to determine whether the 6 kg may fit into an item of luggage without exceeding the regulation limit. In one embodiment, the system 100 add a physical property value to a cumulative physical property value associated with a user, then compare the sum of the two values against a limit. In doing so, the system 100 may incrementally monitor the physical properties of items to be stored within a receptacle, against limitations associated with the receptacle. In one embodiment, the comparison may further include an initial value associated with the receptacle. For example, a receptacle may weigh 1 kg when it is empty. Then, the system 100 may add a 6 kg acquired item to the initial 1 kg weight to determine that the user has only 13 kg left of possible weight to add to his luggage, if he is to not exceed the 20 kg limit. The 13 kg may then serve as threshold criteria that inform subsequent items. Paragraph 0038.
In addition, Beaurepaire teaches that the system optimization capabilities may include determining that a user's recent purchase exceeds the limit, but determining that re-organization of another item may resolve the issue. For example, a volume limit for fluids in check-in luggage might be 3 ounces of fluids. A user may have a cumulative volume value of 2 ounces from 0.5 ounces of one fluid and 1.5 ounces of another fluid. The user may then acquire a third item consisting of 1.5 ounces of fluid. The system 100 may determine that the user may carry the two 1.5-ounce fluids together in the See carry-on luggage to optimize the user's packing considerations relative to the limit. Paragraph 0043.
Further, Beaurepaire teaches that the control logic 221 and cumulative value module 223 may determine the sum of all the items already organized such that it is associated with a receptacle. For example, a user may acquire a new souvenir, but have acquired other five souvenirs since starting her trip. Then, the control logic 211 and cumulative value module 223 may determine the sum of physical property values associated with the first five souvenirs. In a further embodiment, the control logic 211 and cumulative value module 223 may also add a physical property value of the most recent souvenir to that of the previous five to render a cumulative property value. See Paragraph 0067.
Accordingly, the system of Beaurepaire teaches storing multiple items within a specific receptable based on physical attributes of the items, without exceeding a cumulative weight threshold or limit.
Regarding spatial fitting, Beaurepaire teaches that the system optimization capabilities may include determining that a user's recent purchase exceeds the limit, but determining that re-organization of another item may resolve the issue. For example, a volume limit for fluids in check-in luggage might be 3 ounces of fluids. A user may have a cumulative volume value of 2 ounces from 0.5 ounces of one fluid and 1.5 ounces of another fluid. The user may then acquire a third item consisting of 1.5 ounces of fluid. The system 100 may determine that the user may carry the two 1.5-ounce fluids together in the See carry-on luggage to optimize the user's packing considerations relative to the limit. Paragraph 0043.
Accordingly, Beaurepaire teaches internal spatial arrangement of items within a specific container relative to one another.
Thus, the combined teachings of Cho and Beaurepaire, at least teaches or suggests, the claimed invention.
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