DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment dated March 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recites the limitation "the 3D area" in the second to last phrase. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 depend from claims 1, 7, and 13, respectively, and inherit the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadalgi et al., US PG Pub 2022/0084296 A1 (hereafter “Sadalgi”), previously cited, in view of Lakshminarayanan et al., US PG Pub 2014/0081701 A1 (hereafter “Lakshminarayanan”), previously cited, in further view of Morrison, US PG Pub 2017/0132842 A1 (hereafter “Morrison”), previously cited, in further view of Talbot et al., US PG Pub 2020/0219043 A1 (hereafter “Talbot”), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Sadalgi teaches a three-dimensional (3D) image modeling system configured to automatically generate virtual 3D store environments, the 3D image modeling system comprising:
one or more processors (¶0004);
a virtual 3D environment builder script comprising computing instructions configured to execute on the one or more processors (¶0018); and
a memory configured to store 3D imaging assets accessible by the one or more processors and the computing instructions of the virtual 3D environment builder script, wherein the computing instructions of the virtual 3D environment builder script, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (¶0281) to:
load, from the memory, a product set of 3D imaging assets comprising product texture images and one or more standard product models (¶¶0097-0103, 0228-0231, and 0268-0277),
load, from the memory, a structural set of 3D imaging assets comprising a 3D structural model (¶¶0268-0280),
load, from the memory, a matrix file of a virtual product area (¶¶0251-0259),
generate, by a 3D engine inputting the matrix file, a virtual 3D area depicting one or more 3D products, wherein the 3D engine positions the one or more virtual 3D products within the virtual 3D area based on positioning data in the matrix file (¶¶0097, 0106, 0118, 0123, 0128-0139, 0144-0146, 0160-0163, 0169, 0180-0181, 0196-0201, 0220-0231, and 0251-0259), and
generate a virtual 3D store environment based on the virtual 3D area and the 3D structural model, wherein the virtual 3D store environment is configured for rendering as a photorealistic environment in virtual 3D space, wherein the one or more products are configured with at least one of: collision within the virtual 3D area; physical motion with in the 3D area; or interaction within the virtual 3D area (¶¶0100-0102, 0123-0136, 0154-0169, and 0223-0228);
Sadalgi does not teach that the matrix comprises metadata. Lakshminarayanan teaches determining and using brand information in electronic commerce including the known technique of a matrix comprising metadata (¶¶0038-0053). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadalgi, to include metadata as taught by Lakshminarayanan, in order to “improve accuracy of product searching, product matching, product aggregation, product deduping, product attribute value normalization, and the like,” as suggested by Lakshminarayanan (¶0017).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Lakshminarayanan, the results of the combination were predictable.
Sadalgi teaches a virtual 3D area with one or more products including pricing information in proximity to the products (¶¶0237-0247 and 0265-0273) but does not explicitly teach to generate a price tag for at least one product of the one or more products within the virtual 3D area and position the price tag on a 3D shelf of the virtual 3D area in a proximity to the at least one product. Morrison teaches augmented reality e-commerce for in store retail including to generate a price tag for at least one product of the one or more products within the virtual 3D area and position the price tag on a 3D shelf of the virtual 3D area in a proximity to the at least one product (¶¶0111, 0126, and 0177-0187). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadalgi, to include a shelf price tag as taught by Morrison, in order to “provide a high quality experience for a user despite the data storage and processing power limitations of existing augmented reality devices,” as suggested by Morrison (¶0188).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Morrison, the results of the combination were predictable.
Sadalgi does not teach a planogram. Talbot teaches a recognition engine for identifying products within an image captured using a terminal device including wherein the matrix file is a planogram matrix file (¶¶0206-0216). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadalgi, to include a planogram as taught by Talbot, in order to “increase efficiency for users of the system, as an individual can both capture the product data and perform the action items (to improve the compliance scores) in the same visit, rather than having to capture the product data and perform action items across multiple visits, sometimes after the product data becomes stale or is no longer accurate,” as suggested by Talbot (¶0066).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Talbot, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Sadalgi in view of Lakshminarayanan, Morrison, and Talbot teaches the 3D image modeling system of claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises one or more of Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) information, product pricing information, product position data, product dimensional data, pack format data, or one or more two-dimensional (2D)s images (Sadalgi ¶0104).
Regarding claim 3, Sadalgi in view of Lakshminarayanan, Morrison, and Talbot teaches the 3D image modeling system of claim 1, wherein the 3D structural model comprises a 3D shelf (Sadalgi ¶0268).
Regarding claim 4, Sadalgi in view of Lakshminarayanan, Morrison, and Talbot teaches the 3D image modeling system of claim 1, wherein the one or more products are configured with at least one of: collision within the virtual 3D area; physical motion with in the 3D area; or interaction within the virtual 3D area (Sadalgi ¶¶0128-0136).
Regarding claim 5, Sadalgi in view of Lakshminarayanan, Morrison, and Talbot teaches the 3D image modeling system of claim 1, wherein the virtual 3D store environment is rendered in real time (Sadalgi ¶0174).
Regarding claims 7-18, all of the limitations in claims 7-18 are closely parallel to the limitations of system claims 1-6, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Regarding claim 19, Sadalgi in view of Lakshminarayanan, Morrison, and Talbot teaches the 3D image modeling system of claim 1, wherein the structural set of 3D imaging assets includes data regarding one or more virtual 3D shelving units comprising one or more of dimensions of the one or more virtual 3D shelving units, structural elements of the one or more virtual 3D shelving units and a number of virtual shelves for each of the one or more virtual 3D shelving units (Morrison ¶¶0156-0162 and 0177-0186); and wherein the virtual 3D area comprises the one or more virtual 3D shelving units positioned within the virtual 3D area and further comprises the one or more virtual 3D products positioned within or on the virtual shelves of the one or more virtual 3D shelving units (Morrison ¶¶0149-0158 and 0183-0188). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sadalgi, to include 3D shelving units within the virtual 3D area as taught by Morrison, so that “sales rates may be further increased by allowing enhanced visualization of products,” as suggested by Morrison (¶0008).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Morrison, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Sadalgi in view of Lakshminarayanan, Morrison, and Talbot teaches the 3D image modeling system of claim 19: wherein the virtual 3D store environment comprises an avatar and a virtual aisle including the one or more 3D shelving units (Morrison ¶¶0128-0131 and 0186-0187); and wherein the computing instructions of the virtual 3D environment builder script, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to adjust a position of the avatar including to control virtual hands of the avatar to interact with the virtual 3D products within the virtual 3D store environment based on receiving input from a virtual reality (VR) headset or device controlled by a user to allow the user to have an interactive VR experience with the virtual 3D store environment (Morrison ¶¶0005, 0042, 0109-0113, 0128-0132, and 0186). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Morrison, the results of the combination were predictable for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Sadalgi does not teach interaction with a product because Sadalgi teaches interaction with the 3D scene, the examiner notes that Sadalgi further teaches that products are placed in the scene, e.g. ¶¶0168-0169, and configured for interaction. Therefore, the cited references teach the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Siddique et al., US PG Pub 2016/0210602 A1, teaches a system and method for collaborative shopping, business and entertainment.
Mott et al., US Patent 9,734,634 B1, teaches augmented reality product preview.
Non-patent literature Diez, Helen V., et al teaches 3D model management for e-commerce.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights