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 action is in reply to the claims filed on 11/05/2025.
Claims 1, 14, 20, and 22 are amended.
Claims 2, 15, and 23 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3-14, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1, 3-13 and 21-23 are directed to a method, claims 14 and 16-19 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a manufacture. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. In the instant case, representative claim 1 recites abstract concepts including: selecting a set of … stores for a … environment for a particular user based on one or more user-specific criteria associated to the particular user; and sending… information for rendering the … environment, the … environment comprises a defined set of … storefront positions and a set of … storefronts corresponding to the set of … stores; and ...stores comprised in the set of ...stores are prioritized based on the one or more user-specific criteria associated to the particular user and the corresponding ... storefronts of the set of ... storefronts are assigned to positions from the defined set of … storefront positions based on the priority of the corresponding ... stores; further wherein the method further comprises, while the particular user shops in the ... environment: dynamically updating the set of ... stores selected for the ... environment based on one or more shopping-related actions of the particular user made while the user shops in the virtual environment; and sending ... information for ... the dynamically updated set of ... stores in the ... environment, wherein the one or more shopping-related actions of the particular user comprise purchasing an item or placing the item in a shopping cart of the particular user, and dynamically updating the set of ... stores selected for the ... environment comprises either removing one or more ... stores that sell the item from the selected set of ... stores or moving one or more ... stores that sell the item to ... storefront positions that are further away from a position ... the particular user within the ... environment.
When considering the subject matter groupings articulated in MPEP 2106.04, the claims recite an abstract idea of “sending information for rendering an environment of storefronts”. These concepts are considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. In this case, generating information for rendering, or depicting, an environment of storefronts are certain methods of organizing human activity because these are sales activities and behaviors. Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
If it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, then in Step 2A, Prong 2 of the SME analysis, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. This is the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.05, the evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
In this instant case, claims 1, 14, and 20 recite the additional elements including: a computer; virtual stores, environment, and storefronts; an avatar of a particular use within the virtual environment; a client device; sending, to a client device, information for rendering; a computing system comprising: a network interface; and processing circuitry associated with the network interface; a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by processing circuitry of a computing system.
The computer hardware/software component are claimed at a high level of generality. The claims recite sending information for rendering to the client device, without actually requiring rendering of a virtual environment or reciting details as to how this virtual device is rendered. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. implementation via a “virtual” environment provided by a general purpose computer). The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data, or simply adding a general purpose computer/components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea of “sending information for rendering an environment of storefronts” into a practical application. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. The invention as claimed merely automates “sending information for rendering an environment of storefronts” (i.e., the abstract idea) and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract ideas beyond generally linking the abstract process to implementation via computers/software. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, do not render the claim as being significantly more than the underlying abstract idea, and the claims 1, 14, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13, 15-19, and 21-23 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the recited elements of ‘while the particular user shops in the virtual environment: dynamically updating the set of virtual stores selected for the virtual environment based on one or more shopping-related actions of the particular user made while the user shops in the virtual environment; and sending, to the client device, information for rendering the dynamically updated set of virtual stores in the virtual environment’ are both: (a) an improvement to the technology or technical field of generation and rendering of a virtual shopping environment and (b) a specific limitation included in the claims other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of generating and rendering of a virtual shopping environment”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". MPEP 2106.05(f).
The identified limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the dynamic updating. These limitations are equivalent to “apply it” or mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer which does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Additionally, cannot improve rendering and generating a virtual shopping environment, because the claims do not recite or require generating or rendering a virtual shopping environment. Claim 1 recites a method for selecting and dynamically updating a set of virtual stores, and sending information. Applicant may intend for this information to be used for rendering/generating a virtual environment, however the scope of the claim does not require any rendering of a virtual environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “dynamically updating the set of virtual stores selected for the virtual environment comprises either removing one or more virtual stores that sell the item from the selected set of virtual stores” includes removing stored data from a list. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “dynamically updating the updating set of virtual stores selected for the virtual environment comprises ... moving one or more virtual stores that sell the item to virtual storefront positions that are further away from a position of an avatar of the particular user within the virtual environment” includes changing stored positional data of a virtual storefront to be further from stored positional data of an avatar, where this stored positional data is defined with respect to virtual coordinates. These are abstract ideas of manipulating and organizing information. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that claim 1 does not improve technology and instead applies abstract activity on generic computers used merely as tools.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant further agues “upon reading the specification of the present application, one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvement provided by dynamically updating the set of virtual stores selected for the virtual environment in the manner provided by claim 1”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification discloses in ¶ [0021] that it is cumbersome, time consuming, and unenjoyable for a user to navigate a virtual e-commerce environment with many virtual stores, and that additionally, having a large number of stores would consume enormous computer resources. As such, it is desired to “have fewer virtual stores”. To this end, the Specification proposes in ¶ [0022] methods for dynamically updating the included virtual storefronts to improve user’s experience and consume fewer resources in generating the virtual environment and communication information representing the virtual environment. However, selecting fewer or personalized stores to be included in a virtual e-commerce environment does not suffice to make claim 1 non-abstract. The usage of fewer computing resources in rendering and/or communicating the virtual environment is a speculative benefit not recited or apparent in the claims as a whole. For example, there is no rendering, display, or generation of a virtual environment recited in the claims. Simply sending less information, where the sending is performed with capabilities of a general-purpose computer, is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Moreover, a human is capable of performing the selecting, sending, and dynamically updating a set of virtual stores as recited in claim 1 (e.g., select, send, and update a list of virtual store names as a user shops).
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pg. 14 of the Remarks, referencing Ex Parte Desjardins, the Examiner relies on the above response explaining how claim 1 does not improve the technology of rendering a virtual environment. Examiner further notes that the statement “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method” is still recited in the latest revision of the MPEP 2105.05(a) and therefore still applicable.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner is maintaining the 101 rejections of claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 because they are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/06/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been considered and are persuasive. Each of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 has been amended to include the allowable subject matter identified in cancelled claim 23. The 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
F. Menczer, W. N. Street and A. E. Monge, (NPL Reference U) describes a shopping agent that can provide customers with adaptive and customized shopping assistance by learning users’ personal preferences.
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 KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached on 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688