DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on November 20, 2025 for application 17899191
Acknowledgements
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are pending.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Irvin in view of Keeler and Brown does not describe “providing a virtual good for sale associated with a physical good for sale via the user interface based on a second physical location of the computing device within the first physical location and responsive to a purchase of an associated physical good in the second physical location”, as provided in independent claim 1, as amended. Applicant argues that the virtual items of Keeler are not provided for sale responsive to a purchase of an associated physical good in the second physical location.
After careful reconsideration of the prior art references, Examiner respectfully disagrees as Keeler describes in paragraphs ¶0124-¶0125 disclose providing and/or presenting items to a customer by first determining a layout based on various criteria such as one or more traversed paths within a store layout, one or more attributes and/or location information or determining layout can include one or more volume items sold. Also, the location information in determining layout can include one or more locations where items were viewed and location where items were purchased.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negative by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irvin et al. (US 2018/0284453 A1) in view of Keeler et al. (US 2019/0266663 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 2021/0359996 A1) in view of High et al. (US 2017/0200117 A1) and in further view of Ciptawilangga (US 2011/0078052 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Irvin discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a memory device; and a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device is configured to: (Fig. 1 (103); ¶0027, ¶0029, ¶0030)
detect a computing device (“client device”) within a threshold radius of a first physical location; (¶0022, ¶0032-¶0034, ¶0037)
display a virtual environment associated with the physical location via a user interface of the computing device; and (¶0044 “The mapping module 121 may plot the locations of products carried by the store onto a map viewable to sales associates on the augmented reality display device 131 or directly to the customer's client device)
Irvin does not disclose: provide and [update a plurality of virtual goods for sale that is not physically available for sale in the first location and is associated with a plurality of physical goods] for sale via the user interface based on a second physical location of the computing device within the first physical location and responsive to a purchase of an associated physical good in the second physical location; display the virtual good, via augmented reality, as an overlay of the second physical location; receive a request to purchase the virtual good; provide a virtual cart interface for purchase of the one of the plurality of virtual goods; wherein the virtual cart interface accepts a different payment format for the one of the plurality of virtual goods than the physical good and complete the purchase of the virtual good, wherein the purchased virtual good comprises metadata indicating a time of and the first physical location of the purchase.
Keeler however discloses:
provide and […] a plurality of virtual goods for sale via the user interface based on a second physical location of the computing device within the first physical location (¶0034, ¶0040, ¶0062 “a customer is able to traverse or walk within a virtual store layout”, ¶0064 - “HMD 212 can provide motion and/or path information of customer 250 through store layout such as path to display / furniture”, ¶0087 - “user input from customer 250 indicating that user 250 moved from one position of layout 200 to another position in layout 200 can be received”) and responsive to a purchase of an associated physical good in the second physical location (¶0124-¶0125 “these paragraphs disclose providing and/or presenting items to a customer by determining a layout based on various criteria such as one or more traversed paths within a store layout, one or more
attributes and/or location information or determining layout can
include one or more volume items sold. Also, the location information in determining layout can include one or more locations where items were viewed and location where items were purchased).
display the plurality of virtual goods, via augmented reality, as an overlay of the second physical location (abstract, ¶0078, ¶0135, ¶0137-¶0138)
receive a request to purchase the virtual good (¶0062, ¶0087, ¶0090, ¶0139)
provide a virtual cart interface for purchase of the one of the plurality of virtual goods; and (¶0090, ¶0091, ¶0149)
wherein the virtual cart interface accepts a different payment format for the one of the plurality of virtual goods than the physical good (¶0091, ¶0092)
complete the purchase of the one of the plurality of virtual goods, wherein the purchased one of the plurality of virtual goods comprises metadata indicating a time of and the first physical location of the purchase (¶0062, ¶0091, ¶0093, ¶0101 “products can presented at various locations of layout, location ID”, ¶0146, ¶0150, ¶0152)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Irvin to include provide a virtual good for sale associated with a physical good for sale via the user interface based on a second physical location of the computing device within the first physical location, as disclosed in Keeler, in order to provide an augmented reality commerce environment to an augmented reality device of a user/customer to offer goods and/or services for sale or purchase (see Keeler ¶0034).
The combination of Irvin and Keeler does not disclose: authenticate, via the blockchain, the plurality of virtual goods with a date, a time, and a geolocation and responsive to the purchase completion, [provide authentication data].
Brown however discloses:
authenticate, via the blockchain, the plurality of virtual goods with a date, a time, and a geolocation and (¶0137, ¶0142).
responsive to the purchase completion, [provide authentication data] (¶0136-¶0137)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Irvin to include “authenticate the virtual good with a date, a time, and a geolocation and responsive to the purchase completion, [provide authentication data]”, as disclosed in Brown, in order to provide an authentication method to build trust in the transaction by authenticating the item for sale or trade (see Brown ¶0142).
The combination of Irvin, Keeler and Brown does not disclose the concept of: [update a plurality of virtual goods for sale that is not physically available for sale in the first location and is associated with a plurality of physical goods] and wherein updating the plurality of virtual goods comprises adding and removing virtual goods of the plurality of virtual goods for sale based on the computing device being in different physical locations within the first physical locations.
High however discloses:
[update a plurality of virtual goods for sale that is not physically available for sale in the first location and is associated with a plurality of physical goods] and (¶0029, ¶0054-¶0055, ¶0062)
wherein updating the plurality of virtual goods comprises adding and removing virtual goods of the plurality of virtual goods for sale based on the computing device being in different physical locations within the first physical locations (¶0030, ¶0054, ¶0062)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Irvin to include “[update a plurality of virtual goods for sale that is not physically available for sale in the first location and is associated with a plurality of physical goods] and wherein updating the plurality of virtual goods comprises adding and removing virtual goods of the plurality of virtual goods for sale based on the computing device being in different physical locations within the first physical locations”, as disclosed in High, in order to provide a product order fulfillment system to improve the customer service and/or convenience for the customer (see High ¶0011).
The combination of Irvin, Keeler, Brown and High does not disclose: responsive to the purchase completion, [provide authentication data] and automatically provide the one of the plurality of virtual goods to an avatar in a metaverse.
Ciptawilangga however discloses: responsive to the purchase completion, automatically provide the one of the plurality of virtual goods to an avatar in a metaverse (¶0035, ¶0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Irvin to include “[responsive to the purchase completion, automatically provide the one of the plurality of virtual goods to an avatar in a metaverse”, as disclosed in Ciptawilangga, in order to provide an online virtual reality ecommerce system providing parallel, linked real and virtual products with parallel benefits to users and to their avatars (see Ciptawilangga abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Irvin discloses wherein the processing device is configured to display the virtual environment via augmented reality (¶0044)
Regarding Claim 4, Irvin discloses wherein the processing device is configured to provide a different one of the plurality of virtual goods for sale via the user interface when the computing device moves to a different, third physical location within the first physical location (¶0044, ¶0043)
Regarding Claim 5, Irvin discloses wherein the processing device configured to detect the computing device within the threshold radius of a first physical location comprises the processing device detecting that the computing device is connected to a communication network associated with the first physical location (¶0022, ¶0032-¶0034, ¶0037)
Regarding Claim 6, Irvin discloses wherein the processing device configured to detect the computing device within the threshold radius of the first physical location comprises the processing device detecting that the computing device is within a global positioning boundary associated with the first physical location (¶0032-¶0034).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irvin, Keeler, Brown, High, Ciptawilangga and in further view of Francis (US 2024/0119411 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Irvin, Keeler, Brown, High and Ciptawilangga does not disclose wherein the processing device is configured to remove the one of the plurality of virtual goods from sale responsive to the computing device leaving the second physical location or the threshold radius of the first physical location.
Francis however discloses wherein the processing device is configured to remove the one of the plurality of virtual goods from sale responsive to the computing device leaving the second physical location or the threshold radius of the first physical location (¶1061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Irvin to include wherein the processing device is configured to remove the one of the plurality of virtual goods from sale responsive to the computing device leaving the second physical location or the threshold radius of the first physical location, as disclosed in Francis, in order to provide a system for techniques for filling orders using mobile computing devices (see Francis abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697