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 09/09/2026. Currently, claims 21-38 are pending. Claims 21, 27 and 33 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. No newly added 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 21-38 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 delivering a fashion item recommendation collaborative interface.
Exemplary claim 21 recites in part,
“generating an interactive communications interface accessible by the first computing device and the second computing device via the communication link;
computing associations between the plurality of multi-dimensional attributes of the electronic fashion item models and accumulated behavioral event data associated with the plurality of network nodes by generating a shared multi-dimensional attribute vector corresponding to the plurality of network nodes, and dynamically updating the shared multi- dimensional attribute vector based on real-time node interaction events;
generating a data-driven output comprising a visual representation of at least one electronic fashion item model based on the computed associations and the updated shared multi-dimensional attribute vector;
enforcing a system restriction that automatically filters and restricts selection of available electronic fashion item models in the interactive communications interface based on the updated shared multi-dimensional attribute vector; and
automatically transmitting the visual representation of the at least one electronic fashion item model into the interactive communications interface, thereby delivering a visual fashion item recommendation to the first computing device or the second computing device.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) generating communication interface, 2) determining an association between a plurality of users’ input data, 3) generating a result based on determined association, and 4) displaying the result in the interactive interface.
The above steps describe the process of item recommendation via group collaboration. 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 and hardware memory, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computer-related elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “storing a database of electronic fashion item models” and “establishing a communication link defining a plurality of network nodes” represent storing and transmitting 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. “Transmitting/obtaining information over a network” and “storing and retrieving information from memory” have been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, the computing devices and hardware memory 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 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, 22, 26-28, 32-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0379426 (Guo et al. – hereinafter Guo), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2010/0191770 (Cho et al. – hereinafter Cho).
Referring to claim 21, Guo discloses a system for delivering conversational fashion recommendations across networked computing devices, the system comprising:
a hardware memory device storing a database of electronic fashion item models, each electronic fashion item model comprising a plurality of multi-dimensional attributes corresponding to a physical fashion item; and [See paragraphs 0026, 0038-0040, 0042, Fig. 1]
one or more computing devices configured to interact with the hardware memory device and execute instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations including: [See paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0026, 0029, 0030, Fig. 1]
establishing a communication link defining a plurality of network nodes, the plurality of network nodes including at least a first computing device and a second computing device; [See paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0027, 0031-0033, Fig. 1]
generating an interactive communications interface accessible by the first computing device and the second computing device via the communication link; [See paragraphs 0056, 0057, 0061]
computing associations between the plurality of multi-dimensional attributes of the electronic fashion item models and accumulated behavioral event data associated with the plurality of network nodes by generating a shared multi-dimensional attribute vector corresponding to the plurality of network nodes, and dynamically updating the shared multi-dimensional attribute vector based on real-time node interaction events; [See paragraphs 0040, 0046, 0055, 0057, 0058, 0064, 0065]
generating a data-driven output comprising a visual representation of at least one electronic fashion item model based on the computed associations and the updated shared multi-dimensional attribute vector; and [See paragraphs 0046, 0048, 0055, 0057, 0058, 0064, 0065, Fig. 8]
enforcing a system restriction that automatically filters and restricts selection of available electronic fashion item models in the interactive communications interface based on the updated shared multi-dimensional attribute vector. [See paragraphs 0048-0053 – The system restricts one or more users from wearing the same outfit based on updated user inputs from one or more users of the group. The system filters out similar proposed outfits by placing an “X” the proposed outfit.]
Guo does not explicitly disclose the limitation: automatically transmitting the visual representation of the at least one electronic fashion item model into the interactive communications interface, thereby delivering a visual fashion item recommendation to the first computing device or the second computing device.
Cho teaches a system with the limitation: automatically transmitting the visual representation of the at least one electronic fashion item model into the interactive communications interface, thereby delivering a visual fashion item recommendation to the first computing device or the second computing device. [See paragraphs 0050-0052, Fig. 4]
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 Guo to have incorporated an interactive interface as in Cho with the motivation of facilitation interaction between users regarding a fashion item. [See Cho paragraphs 0050-0052; Guo paragraphs 0055-0058]
Referring to claim 22, the combination of Guo and Cho discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the interactive communications interface comprises a specific group chat for a planned event, and wherein delivering the visual fashion item recommendation comprises presenting a coordinated virtual outfit to the first computing device and the second computing device within the specific group chat. [See Guo paragraphs 0017, 0048-0052; Cho paragraphs 0054]
Referring to claim 26, the combination of Guo and Cho discloses the system of claim 21, wherein computing the associations further comprises simultaneously receiving external data from a plurality of third-party application programming interfaces (APIs) and synthesizing the external data with the accumulated behavioral event data to generate the visual representation. [See Guo paragraphs 0055, 0057, 0058, 0064, 0065]
Referring to claims 27, 28 and 32, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 21, 22 and 26, and therefore are rejected based on same rationale.
Referring to claims 33, 34 and 38, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 21, 22 and 26, and therefore are rejected based on same rationale.
Claims 23-25, 29-31 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Cho as applied to claims 21, 27 and 33 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2015/0058083 (Herrero).
Referring to claim 23, the combination of Guo and Cho discloses the system of claim 21 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the interactive communications interface comprises a video chatting component, and wherein the visual representation of the at least one electronic fashion item model is generated within a video communications interface.
Herrero teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the interactive communications interface comprises a video chatting component, and wherein the visual representation of the at least one electronic fashion item model is generated within a video communications interface. [See paragraphs 0011, 0054, 0060]
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 Guo to have incorporated a streaming conference feature as in Herrero with the mo`1tivation of facilitation interaction between users regarding a fashion item. [See Herrero paragraphs 0011, 0054; Guo paragraphs 0055-0058]
Referring to claim 24, the combination of Guo, Cho and Herrero discloses the system of claim 21, wherein automatically transmitting the visual representation comprises initiating a push notification delivery to the first computing device using a push messaging component triggered by the accumulated behavioral event data. [See Herrero paragraphs 0046, 0050, 0056]
Referring to claim 25, the combination of Guo and Cho discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the instructions cause one or more computing devices to perform operations further including:
receiving, via the interactive communications interface, a selection of the delivered visual fashion item recommendation from the first computing device; and [See Herrero paragraph 0042]
initiating a transaction for the physical fashion item corresponding to the selected visual fashion item recommendation directly via the communication link. [See Herrero paragraph 0042]
Referring to claims 29-31, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 23-25, and therefore are rejected based on same rationale.
Referring to claims 35-37, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 23-25, and therefore are rejected based on same rationale.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2026 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 claims describe the steps of: 1) generating an interactive communication interface accessible by two or more computing devices, 2) associating a plurality of shared multi-dimensional attributes of electronic fashion item models with a plurality of network nodes (group of users), 3) generating visual representation of electronic fashion item model based on the association, 4) enforcing a system restriction by filtering and restricting selection to available electronic fashion item model, 5) transmitting and displaying visual representation of fashion item recommendation.
The steps describe the process of item recommendation via group collaboration. The steps cover managing interactions between people, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
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.
Newly added feature “computing associations… by generating a shared multi-dimensional attribute vector corresponding to the plurality of network nodes, and dynamically updating the shared multi-dimensional attribute vector based on real-time node interaction events” simply receives and updates shared multi-dimensional attribute vector of electronic fashion item model based on real-time node interaction (user input).
In U.S. Patent Appl. No. 18/411,909, the claim recites freezing a group associated with a bidding upon determining that a bidding amount meets an asking price requirement. The frozen group is determined as the winning bidding entity upon determination that a second bid amount does not meet a second asking price. The claims recite a particular state-management mechanism that dynamically creates, updates, and finalizes group membership information during operation of an auction.
In U.S. Patent Appl. No. 18/117,863, the claim recites enforcing an access restriction which requires performance of a digital activity prior to granting access to the application. The access restriction is enforced during at least one time interval of spending. The claims prevent access to a pecuniary (financial) application during a particular time interval upon satisfying defined requirements.
Unlike the present application, the added feature, “enforcing a system restriction that automatically filters and restricts selection of available electronic fashion item models in the interactive communications interface based on the updated shared multi-dimensional attribute vector” simply filters out unavailable fashion item models from being considered for selection. In BASCOM, the court held that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract. In BASCOM, a filtering scheme is implemented that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. Similar to BASCOM, the claimed feature filters out unavailable fashion item models from being considered based on updated shared multi-dimensional attribute of electronic fashion item models.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 21, 22, 26-28, 32-34, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Guo in view of Cho have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The system of Guo teaches that the fashion social network will comprise a plurality of users, as well as a database. This database will typically be configured to store, on a per user basis, user clothing information, user fashion preferences, user social network linkages, and social network fashion preferences. Users will typically form groups where group members typically are related by a "friends" or "friends of friends" basis, and due to the fashion orientation of the system, groups will be encouraged to select primarily members with similar fashion taste. A group may optionally require new potential members to answer a fashion quiz (either provided by the system, or provided by the members themselves) to help insure similar fashion interests. See paragraph 0026.
Further, the system of Guo teaches that a user can sort various fashion items according to various categories such as item types, item colors, item styles, item history information, user fashion preferences, and social network fashion preferences (e.g. preferences of at least the members of social group 110 in the case of user 112), and the system can then produce sorted user wardrobe items or sorted user outfits. See paragraphs 0040.
In addition, Guo teaches that the various members of a particular social group of friends and friends of friends can enter in their particular favored wardrobe items or outfits that they may be wearing or planning to wear, and send this to the server. The server can use this information, along with information pertaining to a particular user's wardrobe and particular user fashion preferences, to suggest items of clothing that generally fit in with the preferences of other members of the user's social group, yet may not be identical to the other outfits. See paragraph 0046.
From the above paragraphs, the system of Guo associates shared multi-dimensional attributes of electronic fashion item models with a plurality of network nodes, and dynamically updates the shared multi-dimensional attributes based on real-time node interactions.
The system of Guo teaches that the system can also help detect wardrobe "collisions" where two members of the system may be planning to attend the same event at the same time, yet do not want to wear identical outfits. Here the system has detected that the user's proposed outfit is identical to an outfit that another member of the same social group (or alternatively any social group in the social network) has previously planned to wear, and is thus warning the user about the likely outfit "collision". See paragraph 0017.
Guo teaches that system can help detect and prevent wardrobe "collisions", where two members of the system may be planning to attend the same event at the same time, yet do not want to wear identical outfits. Here the system has detected that user’s proposed outfit (is identical to an outfit earlier chosen by another member of the same social group (or alternatively any social group in the social network). The system here is warning the user about the likely outfit "collision", by drawing the "X" mark over user's proposed outfit (here any type of warning, including audio messages, text messages alternate symbols, etc. may be used). See paragraph 0048. See also paragraph 0051.
From the above paragraphs, the system of Guo enforces system restriction that filters and restricts selection of available items based on shared multi-dimensional attribute vector.
The system of Cho teaches that friends can provide ratings of the fashion items in the owner's Virtual Closet. For example, friend ratings can depict the ratings that one or more friends have given to fashion item 404. Comment Input can allow a friend to leave a comment on an owner's fashion item. The comment can include the friend's opinion of the fashion item, a memory the friend has that involves the fashion item, or any other type of comment. A friend can recommend a fashion item to the owner of the social networking Virtual Closet. For example, a friend can recommend an item which they feel the owner is lacking in their Virtual Closet (e.g., you should buy a jean vest). As another example, a friend may recommend an item that can be used to complete a particular outfit. The recommended item can include, for example, a fashion item from the friend's own Virtual Closet (e.g., a link to or an image of a fashion item from the friend's Virtual Closet), an item that is for sale on a vendor's webpage, a description of a general fashion item (e.g., "you should get some shirts that are colorful"), or any other suitable fashion item. See paragraphs 0050-0052.
From the above paragraph, the system of Cho teaches a manual process of generating and transmitting a visual representation of at least one electronic fashion item model fashion item model into the interactive communications interface. The court have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (III).
Accordingly, the combined teachings of Guo and Cho, at least suggests or teaches, the claimed invention.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 23-25, 29-31 and 35-37, under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Guo in view of Cho, and further in view of Herrero have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed above for claims 21, 27 and 33, the combination of Guo and Cho, at least teaches or suggests, the limitations of the claimed invention. In addition, the cited portions of Herrero, at least teach or suggest, the recited limitations.
Accordingly, the combination of Guo, Cho and Herrero, at least teaches or suggests, the features of the recited limitations.
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