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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/313,281 filed 2/24/2022.
Claims Status
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues that Fig. 3F and paragraph 0012 provide adequate disclosure:
“FIG. 3F, paragraph [0012], and original claims 1, 8, and 12 clearly describe and show nonselectable items in the pictures that are not for purchase. Paragraph [0012] broadly disclose, "In some implementations, the shopping mobile application is configured to display items in a grid format." This includes selectable and non- selectable items. FIG. 3F shows pictures that include items that are nonselectable. One skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of a computer-implemented method for shopping online comprising displaying pictures on the first computing device as a scrollable interface with the pictures arranged in a grid format wherein each of the pictures comprise non-selectable items that are not for purchase and selectable merchandise for purchase”.
While the Examiner agrees that the subject matter of displaying pictures in a grid format is supported, neither the cited portions by Applicant nor the remainder of the specification discuss nonselectable items that are depicted within the pictures. The Examiner observes Applicant’s statement that “FIG. 3F shows pictures that include items that are nonselectable”; however, Applicant does not point to any particular “items” depicted that are nonselectable. Figure 3F shows a plurality of pictures in a grid format, but the figure does not provide any indication of merchandise or “items” (as is now claimed) that are nonselectable. The only description of items of merchandise in the Figures and specification are those that are selectable. Notably, “items” are understood as “i.e., clothes or other merchandise” (see: Specification 0019, 0030).
For at least these reasons the rejection has been maintained.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant initially cites to paragraph 0003 of the Specification:
“In a typical brick and mortar setting, retail customers may shop with others to get feedback on merchandise and may listen to music playing in the retail store while shopping. Many of these experiences are not available online”.
This paragraph admits that the “typical” experience in a physical setting is to enable shopping, feedback and even listening to music playing. Merly offering this experience “online” is nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Applicant further asserts that the present invention is “inherently computer related”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is because the “problem” being solved represents a commercial problem, with the claims simply improving upon the shopping experience. Here again, the Examiner reiterates that the claims do little more than generally link the abstract idea of shopping to the online realm. Furthermore, neither the specification nor the claims provide adequate detail with respect to any of the underlying technical operations to be performed. Instead, the invention sets forth the use of generic computer components and software – including the newly amended scrollable interface - specified only at a high level of generality. Applicant is reminded that if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (MPEP 2106.05(a)). As claimed, and as described in the specification, the invention merely utilizes these components to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
III. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites displaying the pictures on the first computing device as a scrollable interface with the pictures arranged in a grid format wherein each of the pictures comprise non-selectable items that are not for purchase and selectable merchandise for purchase.
Each portion of the specification that discusses or depicts merchandise only depicts selectable merchandise – e.g., 0015-0016, Fig. 3F-3G. Although the specification sets for that the user interfaces are “are configured to allow a user to click or otherwise select clothes worn by a model displayed in pictures to purchase”, there is no subsequent description of items that appears as a picture but are non-selectable. The specification as originally filed does not use the terminology non-selectable, or otherwise describe receiving pictures comprising non-selectable items in other terminology such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that Applicant had possession of this claimed feature of the invention at the time of filing.
For examination purposes pictures of non-selectable items will be understood to include any image(s) that depict items that are not for sale, or otherwise unavailable for purchase.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-7, claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. As such, claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected along with claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 similarly recites non-selectable items as discussed above regarding claim 1. 1 recites displaying the pictures on the first computing device wherein the pictures comprise non-selectable merchandise that is not for purchase and selectable merchandise for purchase wherein the pictures are displayed in a grid format. Each portion of the specification that discusses or depicts merchandise only depicts selectable merchandise – e.g., 0015-0016, Fig. 3F-3G. Although the specification sets for that the user interfaces are “are configured to allow a user to click or otherwise select clothes worn by a model displayed in pictures to purchase”, there is no subsequent description of merchandise that appears as a picture but is non-selectable.
Each portion of the specification that discusses or depicts merchandise only depicts selectable merchandise – e.g., 0015-0016, Fig. 3F-3G. Although the specification sets for that the user interfaces are “are configured to allow a user to click or otherwise select clothes worn by a model displayed in pictures to purchase”, there is no subsequent description of items that appears as a picture but are non-selectable. The specification as originally filed does not use the terminology non-selectable, or otherwise describe receiving pictures comprising non-selectable items in other terminology such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that Applicant had possession of this claimed feature of the invention at the time of filing.
Furthermore, Paragraph 0012 and Fig. 3F disclose a “grid” format of pictures; however, these pictures include only selectable merchandise for purchase – i.e., 0012 and Fig. 3F do not discloses pictures of non-selectable items.
For examination purposes pictures of non-selectable items will be understood to include any image(s) that depict items that are not for sale, or otherwise unavailable for purchase.
Regarding claims 9-11, claims 9-11 depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. As such, claims 9-11 are rejected along with claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 sets forth substantially similar limitations and scope including non-selectable items as addressed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 8. Claim 12 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement for at least similar reasons as discussed above regarding claims 1 and 8.
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 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-12, under Step 2A claims 1-2 and 4-12 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites the following limitations which set forth and/or describe the abstract idea(s):
1. A computer-implemented method for shopping, the method comprising:
receiving at a first computing device pictures transmitted over a network from a second computing device;
displaying the pictures on the first computing device arranged in a grid format wherein each of the pictures comprise non-selectable items that are not for purchase and selectable merchandise for purchase;
playing music on the first computing device while displaying the pictures; and
receiving a selection of one of the selectable merchandise on the first computing device and adding the selection to a shopping cart for purchase.
These limitations recite organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the limitations emphasized above set forth and describe a method for shopping which enables a user to receive product pictures and select products to be added to a shopping cart for purchase. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a computer-implemented method, a first computing device, a network, a second computing device, and a scrollable interface.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, receiving at a first computing device pictures transmitted over a network from a second computing device at best represents little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, obtaining information and transaction, presentation of offers, storing data) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 4-7, dependent claims 2 and 4-7 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. This includes limitations such as displaying pictures comprising models wearing the selectable merchandise, sharing at least one of the pictures, and the like.
As such, claims 2 and 4-7 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2 and 4-7 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, elements such as a third computing device, a direct messaging interface, and a checkout interface in dependent claims 2 and 4-7 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2 and 4-7 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2 and 4-7 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 8-11 and claim 12, claims 8-11 and claim 12 recite additional methods for shopping that comprise at least substantially similar limitations describing the abstract idea(s) and additional elements that are recited in claims 1-2 and 4-7 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 8-11 and claim 12 are rejected under at least similar rationale and ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincl (US 2022/0197963) in view of Collins (US 2016/0086257) and Hamilton (US 2002/0152127).
Regarding claim 1, Kincl teaches a computer-implemented method for shopping online, the method comprising:
receiving at a first computing device pictures transmitted over a network from a second computing device (see: 0032-0033, 0059, Fig. 5 (530), Fig. 10 (1010, 1020));
displaying the pictures on the first computing device as a scrollable interface with the pictures arranged in a grid format wherein each of the pictures comprises… selectable merchandise for purchase (see: 0033-0034, 0037, Fig. 6 (670, 680));
Note: the newsfeed of the user includes a plurality of influencer images modeling unique outfits and/or accessories. These images (or icons) are clickable and allow for the item in the image to be purchased. Notably, the influencer profile, which includes the grid of images 670, 680, is “scrollable” (e.g., 0034” scrollable Influencer Profile 600; see also: 0030-0031, which discuss “scrolling” functionality applied within the interface))).
and,
receiving a selection of at least one of the selectable merchandise on the first computing device and adding the selection to a shopping cart for purchase (see: 0055 (user adds an item to their shopping cart), 0037).
Though disclosing the above, Kincl does not explicitly disclose that the pictures comprise non-selectable items that are not for purchase. Kincl, however, discloses that the image is associated with a singular item (i.e., “the item in the clicked image”) for purchase, though the images of Kincl appear to depict other additional items (see again: 0037, Fig. 6).
To this accord, Collins demonstrates the known technique of providing an image that comprises both non-selectable items that are not for purchase and selectable merchandise for purchase (see: 0029, 0031, Fig. 1A-1B). More specifically, The image of Collins includes “purchasable” items (e.g., the helmet), which are associated with sale item indicators (e.g., item 11 having element 17) and non-purchasable items (e.g., the depicted coat, sans an indicator element) that are not associated with purchase indicators.
Notably, Collins also discloses other features of claim 1, including receiving a selection of at least one of the selectable merchandise on the first computing device and adding the selection to a shopping cart for purchase (see: Fig. 1B #34, 0031, 0033, Fig. 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kincl to have utilized the known technique for displaying both non-purchasable items and purchasable merchandise within a picture/image as taught by Collins in order to have enabled consumers to have quickly and directly displayed information on the sales item while still being able to quickly and conveniently return to their original activity in the digital media once their interest wanes or more preferably, once a purchase is completed (see: Collins: 0027).
Lastly, though disclosing all of the above as noted, Kincl does not disclose playing music on the first computing device while displaying the pictures.
To this accord, Hamilton discloses playing music on the first computing device while displaying the pictures (see: 0047 (e.g., new age music is played when images of nature and science products are displayed); see also: 0024 (store-specific background sounds and music while in a selected store)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kincl to have utilized the known technique of Hamilton for providing background music in order to have set a mood or environment that would have complemented product lines associated with the influencers of Kincl (see: Hamilton: 0012).
2. The computer-implemented method for shopping of claim 1 wherein the selectable merchandise is clothing (see: Kincl: 0037, 0045, Fig. 5-6; Collins: Fig. 1B (e.g., 27, 37, & 38), Fig. 1C (e.g., boots, shorts, goggles), 0032).
Note: Both Kincl and Collins teach clothing. In addition to the teachings of Collins, merely labeling the type of merchandise differently from the prior art does not distinguish the prior art from the claimed invention because merely claiming a different type of product imparts no new or nonobvious functioning to the step performed (MPEP 2111.05).
4. The computer-implemented method for shopping of claim 1 wherein the pictures are of models wearing the selectable merchandise (see: Kincl: 0032, Fig. 5-6; Collins: Fig. 1A, 0027 (picture of a model using or wearing a variety of different items), 0028 (a digital image of a skier wearing the sale item 11)).
7. The computer-implemented method for shopping of claim 1 further comprising displaying a checkout interface for ordering and purchasing the merchandise added to the shopping cart on the first computing device (see: Collins: Fig. 1C #48, 0034-0035 (checkout button that allows the consumer to check out selected items)).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincl in view of Collins and Hamilton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walker (US 2005/0027612 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kincl in view of Collins and Hamilton discloses all of the above including sharing at least one of the pictures received on the first computing device with a third computing device over a network (see: Kincl: Fig. 10 (1050), 0061; Collins: 0055). Though disclosing all of the above, Kincl in view of Collins and Hamilton does not disclose receiving feedback from the third computing device over a network.
To this accord, Walker discloses enabling user to receive feedback from one or more participants via a participant device – i.e., receiving feedback from the third computing device over a network (see: Fig. 2 #208, 0136-0137, 0140, Fig. 14-15, 0141, Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kincl in view of Collins and Hamilton to have utilized the known technique of Walker in order to have enhanced the entertainment value of the on-line shopping experience by providing opportunities to interact with others and receive fashion advice online (see: Walker: 0008, 0190).
6. The computer-implemented method for shopping of claim 1 further comprising displaying a direct messaging interface for composing and sending a direct message over a network to a third computing device (see: Walker: Fig. 12, 0123-0125)
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincl in view of Collins.
Regarding claim 8, Kincl teaches a computer-implemented method for shopping online, the method comprising:
receiving at a first computing device pictures transmitted over a network from a second computing device (see: 0032-0033, 0059, Fig. 5 (530), Fig. 10 (1010, 1020));
displaying the pictures on the first computing device as a scrollable interface with the pictures arranged in a grid format wherein each of the pictures comprises… selectable merchandise for purchase (see: 0033-0034, 0037, Fig. 6 (670, 680));
Note: the newsfeed of the user includes a plurality of influencer images modeling unique outfits and/or accessories. These images (or icons) are clickable and allow for the item in the image to be purchased. Notably, the influencer profile, which includes the grid of images 670, 680, is “scrollable” (e.g., 0034” scrollable Influencer Profile 600; see also: 0030-0031, which discuss “scrolling” functionality applied within the interface))).
and,
receiving a selection of at least one of the selectable merchandise on the first computing device and adding the selection to a shopping cart for purchase (see: 0055 (user adds an item to their shopping cart), 0037).
Though disclosing the above, Kincl does not explicitly disclose that the pictures comprise non-selectable items that are not for purchase. Kincl, however, discloses that the image is associated with a singular item (i.e., “the item in the clicked image”) for purchase, though the images of Kincl appear to depict other additional items (see again: 0037, Fig. 6).
To this accord, Collins demonstrates the known technique of providing an image that comprises both non-selectable items that are not for purchase and selectable merchandise for purchase (see: 0029, 0031, Fig. 1A-1B). More specifically, The image of Collins includes “purchasable” items (e.g., the helmet), which are associated with sale item indicators (e.g., item 11 having element 17) and non-purchasable items (e.g., the depicted coat, sans an indicator element) that are not associated with purchase indicators.
Notably, Collins also discloses other features of claim 1, including receiving a selection of at least one of the selectable merchandise on the first computing device and adding the selection to a shopping cart for purchase (see: Fig. 1B #34, 0031, 0033, Fig. 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kincl to have utilized the known technique for displaying both non-purchasable items and purchasable merchandise within a picture/image as taught by Collins in order to have enabled consumers to have quickly and directly displayed information on the sales item while still being able to quickly and conveniently return to their original activity in the digital media once their interest wanes or more preferably, once a purchase is completed (see: Collins: 0027).
10. The computer-implemented method for shopping of claim 8 wherein the selectable merchandise is clothing (see: Kincl: 0037, 0045, Fig. 5-6; Collins: Fig. 1B (e.g., 27, 37, & 38), Fig. 1C (e.g., boots, shorts, goggles), 0032).
Note: Both Kincl and Collins teach clothing. In addition to the teachings of Collins, merely labeling the type of merchandise differently from the prior art does not distinguish the prior art from the claimed invention because merely claiming a different type of product imparts no new or nonobvious functioning to the step performed (MPEP 2111.05).
11. The computer-implemented method for shopping of claim 8 wherein the pictures are of models wearing the selectable merchandise (see: Kincl: 0032, Fig. 5-6; Collins: Fig. 1A, 0027 (picture of a model using or wearing a variety of different items), 0028 (a digital image of a skier wearing the sale item 11)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincl in view of Collins as applied to claim 8, and further in view of and Hamilton.
Regarding claim 9, Kincl in view of Collins discloses all of the above as noted but does not disclose playing music on the first computing device while displaying the pictures.
To this accord, Hamilton discloses playing music on the first computing device while displaying the pictures (see: 0047 (e.g., new age music is played when images of nature and science products are displayed); see also: 0024 (store-specific background sounds and music while in a selected store)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kincl to have utilized the known technique of Hamilton for providing background music in order to have set a mood or environment that would have complemented product lines associated with the influencers of Kincl (see: Hamilton: 0012).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincl in view of Collins, Hamilton and Walker (US 2005/0027612 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kincl teaches a computer-implemented method for shopping online, the method comprising:
receiving at a first computing device pictures transmitted over a network from a second computing device (see: 0032-0033, 0059, Fig. 5 (530), Fig. 10 (1010, 1020));
displaying the pictures on the first computing device as a scrollable interface with the pictures arranged in a grid format wherein each of the pictures comprises… selectable merchandise for purchase (see: 0033-0034, 0037, Fig. 6 (670, 680));
Note: the newsfeed of the user includes a plurality of influencer images modeling unique outfits and/or accessories. These images (or icons) are clickable and allow for the item in the image to be purchased. Notably, the influencer profile, which includes the grid of images 670, 680, is “scrollable” (e.g., 0034” scrollable Influencer Profile 600; see also: 0030-0031, which discuss “scrolling” functionality applied within the interface))).
wherein the merchandise is clothing and wherein the pictures comp[rise models wearing selectable merchandise (see: 0032, 0037, 0045, Fig. 5-6);
receiving a selection of at least one of the selectable merchandise on the first computing device and adding the selection to a shopping cart for purchase (see: 0055 (user adds an item to their shopping cart), 0037).
Though disclosing the above, Kincl does not explicitly disclose that the pictures comprise non-selectable items that are not for purchase. Kincl, however, discloses that the image is associated with a singular item (i.e., “the item in the clicked image”) for purchase, while the images of Kincl appear to depict other additional items (see again: 0037, Fig. 6).
To this accord, Collins demonstrates the known technique of providing an image that comprises both non-selectable items that are not for purchase and selectable merchandise for purchase (see: 0029, 0031, Fig. 1A-1B). More specifically, the image of Collins includes “purchasable” items (e.g., the helmet), which are associated with sale item indicators (e.g., item 11 having element 17) and non-purchasable items (e.g., the depicted coat, sans an indicator element) that are not associated with purchase indicators.
Notably, Collins also discloses other features of claim 1, including receiving a selection of at least one of the selectable merchandise on the first computing device and adding the selection to a shopping cart for purchase (see: Fig. 1B #34, 0031, 0033, Fig. 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kincl to have utilized the known technique for displaying both non-purchasable items and purchasable merchandise within a picture/image as taught by Collins in order to have enabled consumers to have quickly and directly displayed information on the sales item while still being able to quickly and conveniently return to their original activity in the digital media once their interest wanes or more preferably, once a purchase is completed (see: Collins: 0027).
Additionally, though disclosing all of the above as noted, Kincl does not disclose playing music on the first computing device while displaying the pictures.
To this accord, Hamilton discloses playing music on the first computing device while displaying the pictures (see: 0047 (e.g., new age music is played when images of nature and science products are displayed); see also: 0024 (store-specific background sounds and music while in a selected store)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kincl in view of Collins to have utilized the known technique of Hamilton for providing background music in order to have set a mood or environment that would have complemented product lines associated with the influencers of Kincl (see: Hamilton: 0012).
Lastly, neither Collins nor Hamilton discloses receiving feedback from the third computing device over the network, though Collins discloses sharing images (see again: 0055).
To this accord, Walker discloses enabling user to receive feedback from one or more participants via a participant device – i.e., receiving feedback from the third computing device over a network (see: Fig. 2 #208, 0136-0137, 0140, Fig. 14-15, 0141, Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kincl in view of Collins and Hamilton to have utilized the known technique of Walker in order to have enhanced the entertainment value of the on-line shopping experience by providing opportunities to interact with others and receive fashion advice online (see: Walker: 0008, 0190).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U is a series of screenshot of the website www.Firework.com obtained from www.Archive.com and dated September 10, 2021. PTO form 892-U teaches a shopping interface which provides a plurality of thumbnail pictures arranged in grid format (e.g., p. 1, p. 3-5), a scrollable grid interface (e.g., p. 6-8), purchasable items (e.g., p. 9-12), and non-purchasable items (e.g., p. 2 (background décor), p. 10 (background table)).
Roe (US 9875504) discloses a scrollable interface with both purchasable and non-purchasable items (see: Fig. 2, Fig. 8 (814), Fig. 12 (2100)).
Seo (US 20180146257) discloses a scrollable interface having products arranged in a grid format (see: Fig. 1, Fig. 4B, Fig. 4D, Fig. 5A).
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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619