DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 05/07/2023.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for benefit of Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/317,482 filed 03/07/2022 has been received and acknowledged.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a medium, and claims 11-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
receiving a plurality of files associated with a physical automobile dealership, wherein the files include:
images of automobiles currently in stock, specifications associated with each automobile, images of a physical building of the automobile dealership, and avatars of personnel in the automobile dealership;
generating a replica of the automobile dealership, wherein the replica includes a version of the automobiles currently in stock and a version of the physical building of the automobile dealership;
generating an environment that includes the replica of the automobile dealership;
providing access to an end user of the generated environment that includes the replica of the automobile dealership;
generating a real-time interaction between the end user and one or more of the versions of the automobiles currently in stock, wherein the end user is able to walk around and sit in the one or more of the versions of the automobiles currently in stock;
generating a sales in the environment for transacting a sale of the one or more of the versions of the automobiles currently in stock;
updating an inventory to remove the one or more of the versions of the automobiles currently in stock in response to a sale of the one or more of the versions of the automobiles currently in stock; and
upon determining, by the processor, that the one or more of the versions of the automobiles has been sold, updating the environment, removing the one or more of the versions of the automobiles from the replica of the automobile dealership and from view.
The above limitations recite the concept of providing of a replica of a dealership and selling a vehicle. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the providing of a replica of a dealership and selling a vehicle represents marketing and sales behaviors. Claim 11 recites the same abstract ideas as claim 1 and accordingly fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements, such as a processor in a host computer server; digital avatars; a digital replica of the automobile dealership; the digital replica; a digital version of the automobiles; a digital version of the physical building; a virtual or augmented reality environment; a user interface; digital access; a digital sales interface; and electronically and automatically updating. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1 and 11 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1 and 11 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., providing of a replica of a dealership and selling a vehicle) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1 and 11 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1 and 11 specifying that the abstract idea of providing of a replica of a dealership and selling a vehicle is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 11 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1 and 11, these claims recite additional elements, such as a processor in a host computer server; digital avatars; a digital replica of the automobile dealership; the digital replica; a digital version of the automobiles; a digital version of the physical building; a virtual or augmented reality environment; a user interface; digital access; a digital sales interface; and electronically and automatically updating. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1 and 11 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1 and 11 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1 and 11 specifying that the abstract idea of providing transaction recommendations is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1 and 11 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 11 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Dependent claims 2 and 12 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 further identify additional elements, such as a digital showroom, a virtual location, a digital lot, a virtual test drive, a network connection, a smart contract, a blockchain network, a digital token, and a non-fungible token. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1 and 11, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-4, 6, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (US 20210304500 A1), hereinafter Tan, in view of Gadre et al. (US 10332176 B2), hereinafter Gadre, in view of Soon-Shiong (US 20140129393 A1), hereinafter Soon-Shiong.
In regards to claim 1, Tan discloses a computer program product for generating a virtual automobile dealership platform, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: (Tan: [0006]):
receiving, by a processor in a host computer server, a plurality of files associated with a physical automobile dealership, wherein the files include: images of automobiles currently in stock, specifications associated with each automobile, images of a physical building of the automobile dealership (Tan: [0025] and Fig. 1 – “User 110 may be viewing a virtual showroom image 120 displayed on the screen (or monitor, LCD display, VR headset, etc.). The showroom may be a complete or partial realistic or generated representation of an actual or ideal showroom. For example, a specific showroom located in a city may be videoed or photographed and used for the virtual showroom display”; [0028] – “the virtual showroom may be configured to display a vehicle with the suitable options available, given inventory, etc.”; [0025] and Fig. 1 – “FIG. 1 illustrates a view of a virtual showroom application 100 displayed on a user device in an embodiment”; [0026] and Fig. 2 – “A virtual showroom application running on devices 205a-205n (or servers 250, 210a-b) may communicate, for example, with the internet 220, LANs 210, WLAN 210, servers, cloud 220, provider servers 210 and each other. The communications may comprise information”; [0032] – “the user may select (e.g. settings, list, or app menu, customization), that they are only interested in receiving annotations regarding design features such as trim and colors. Thus, only annotations 510a and 510d may be presented”; [0031] and Fig. 4 – “vehicle information 400 provided in an embodiment. In any mode the user may desire to know or receive specific information regarding a vehicle. A car manufacturer or dealer may desire consumers to know of certain vehicle features. The vehicle information provided for augmented reality information or for virtual showroom overlays may broadly encompass two main categories: exterior 405 and interior vehicle features 410”; the examiner notes Fig. 1 provides images of the vehicles);
generating a digital replica of the automobile dealership, wherein the digital replica includes a digital version of the automobiles currently in stock and a digital version of the physical building of the automobile dealership (Tan: [0025] and Fig. 1 – “User 110 may be viewing a virtual showroom image 120 displayed on the screen (or monitor, LCD display, VR headset, etc.). The showroom may be a complete or partial realistic or generated representation of an actual or ideal showroom. For example, a specific showroom located in a city may be videoed or photographed and used for the virtual showroom display”; [0028] – “the virtual showroom may be configured to display a vehicle with the suitable options available, given inventory, etc.”; [0025] and Fig. 1 – “FIG. 1 illustrates a view of a virtual showroom application 100 displayed on a user device in an embodiment”; the examiner notes Fig. 1 displays vehicles in the showroom);
generating, by the processor, a virtual or augmented reality environment in a user interface that includes the digital replica of the automobile dealership (Tan: [0025] and Fig. 1 – “User 110 may be viewing a virtual showroom image 120 displayed on the screen (or monitor, LCD display, VR headset, etc.). The showroom may be a complete or partial realistic or generated representation of an actual or ideal showroom. For example, a specific showroom located in a city may be videoed or photographed and used for the virtual showroom display”; [0028] – “the virtual showroom may be configured to display a vehicle with the suitable options available, given inventory, etc.”; [0025] and Fig. 1 – “FIG. 1 illustrates a view of a virtual showroom application 100 displayed on a user device in an embodiment”; the examiner notes Fig. 1 displays vehicles in the showroom”);
providing digital access to an end user of the generated virtual or augmented reality environment that includes the digital replica of the automobile dealership through the user interface (Tan: [0025] and Fig. 1 – “User 110 may be viewing a virtual showroom image 120 displayed on the screen (or monitor, LCD display, VR headset, etc.). The showroom may be a complete or partial realistic or generated representation of an actual or ideal showroom. For example, a specific showroom located in a city may be videoed or photographed and used for the virtual showroom display”; [0028] – “the virtual showroom may be configured to display a vehicle with the suitable options available, given inventory, etc.”; [0025] and Fig. 1 – “FIG. 1 illustrates a view of a virtual showroom application 100 displayed on a user device in an embodiment”; the examiner notes Fig. 1 displays vehicles in the showroom);
generating a real-time interaction between the end user and one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles currently in stock through the user interface, wherein the end user is able to walk around and sit in the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles currently in stock (Tan: [0028] – “A user may select a vehicle and walk around it viewing externally, and open the door and climb in virtually and view the interior of the vehicle…Another example may be for a user to see the perspectives of child passengers (what they may see) in a vehicle seat... the virtual showroom may be configured to display a vehicle with the suitable options available, given inventory, etc.”).
Tan further discloses in the automobile dealership (Tan: [0025]); the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles currently in stock and the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles (Tan: [0028]) and the digital replica of the automobile dealership (Tan: [0025]). However, Tan does not explicitly disclose digital avatars of personnel; generating a digital sales interface in the virtual or augmented reality environment for transacting a sale of the one or more of the digital versions; updating an inventory to remove the one or more of the digital versions in response to a sale of the one or more of the digital versions; and upon determining, by the processor, that the one or more of the digital versions has been sold, electronically and automatically updating the virtual or augmented reality environment, removing the one or more of the digital versions from the digital replica and from view in the user interface.
However, Gadre teaches a similar method of virtual shopping (Gadre: Col. 2, Ln. 6), including
digital avatars of personnel (Tan: Col. 22, Ln. 52-55 – “virtual features may include…a salesperson avatar”; Col. 35, Ln. 51 – “Digital avatars may be displayed”);
generating a digital sales interface in the virtual or augmented reality environment for transacting a sale of the one or more of the digital versions (Gadre: Col. 20, Ln. 16-20 – “The control element 816 may be selected with the pointer 830 to add the product in the quantity specified by the control element 814 to a checkout list for purchase”; Col. 25, Ln. 14-22 – “the user device 1102 displays an interface element 1302 that is user selectable for purchasing the item online (e.g., via an online marketplace). For example, in response to the user selection of the interface element 1302, the user device 1102 may display a product page (e.g., a webpage or application of the online marketplace) for viewing and/or purchasing the selected item.”);
a sale of the one or more of the digital versions (Gadre: Col. 25, Ln. 14-22 – “the user device 1102 displays an interface element 1302 that is user selectable for purchasing the item online (e.g., via an online marketplace). For example, in response to the user selection of the interface element 1302, the user device 1102 may display a product page (e.g., a webpage or application of the online marketplace) for viewing and/or purchasing the selected item.”); and
the one or more of the digital versions has been sold (Gadre: Col. 25, Ln. 14-22 – “the user device 1102 displays an interface element 1302 that is user selectable for purchasing the item online (e.g., via an online marketplace). For example, in response to the user selection of the interface element 1302, the user device 1102 may display a product page (e.g., a webpage or application of the online marketplace) for viewing and/or purchasing the selected item.”; Col. 35, Ln. 18-20 – “personal closet may include products that the user has purchased using the digital inventory system 500”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the sales and avatar of Gadre in the method of Tan because Tan already discloses a shopping environment and Gadre is merely demonstrating that a sale may occur and avatars may be present. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included digital avatars of personnel; generating a digital sales interface in the virtual or augmented reality environment for transacting a sale of the one or more of the digital versions; a sale of the one or more of the digital versions; and the one or more of the digital versions has been sold as taught by Gadre because avatars and purchases are well-known and the use of it in a shopping setting would have improved the user's shopping experience (Gadre: Col. 35, Ln. 52).
Additionally, Soon-Shiong teaches a similar method of virtual shopping (Soon-Shiong: [abstract]), including
updating an inventory to remove the one or more of the digital versions in response to a sale (Soon-Shiong: [0074] – “If a frozen pizza is removed from the physical freezer (e.g., for purchase by a shopper…), the frozen pizza can be removed from the virtual freezer in real-time or substantially real-time”); and
upon determining, by the processor, the one or more has been sold, electronically and automatically updating the virtual or augmented reality environment, removing the one or more of the digital versions from the digital replica and from view in the user interface (Soon-Shiong: [0074] – “If a frozen pizza is removed from the physical freezer (e.g., for purchase by a shopper…), the frozen pizza can be removed from the virtual freezer in real-time or substantially real-time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the updating of Soon-Shiong in the combined method of Tan/Gadre because Tan/Gadre already discloses a shopping environment and Soon-Shiong is merely demonstrating that inventory may be updated. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included updating an inventory to remove the one or more of the digital versions in response to a sale; and upon determining, by the processor, the one or more has been sold, electronically and automatically updating the virtual or augmented reality environment, removing the one or more of the digital versions from the digital replica and from view in the user interface as taught by Soon-Shiong because updating inventory is well-known and the use of it in a shopping setting would have maximized profits (Soon-Shiong: [0016]).
In regards to claim 2, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong teaches the medium of claim 1. Tan further discloses
wherein the program instructions further comprise generating a real-time interaction between the end user and the automobile dealership, wherein the real-time interaction includes \ answering the end user, and pointing out features of the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles (Tan: [0052] and Fig. 5A – “A user may select an annotation in order to receive more detailed information. For example, annotation 510c regarding headlights may be selected. In an embodiment, as shown in FIG. 5B, the annotation 510c was selected and a 520 was presented showing more detailed information about the headlights”).
Tan further discloses the automobile dealership (Tan: [0025]), yet Tan does not explicitly disclose and the one or more of the digital avatars of personnel in the; one of the digital avatars; asking the end user questions; and that requests may be questions from.
However, Gadre teaches a similar method of virtual shopping (Gadre: Col. 2, Ln. 6), including
and the one or more of the digital avatars of personnel in the; one of the digital avatars (Gadre: Col. 22, Ln. 52-55 – “virtual features may include…a salesperson avatar”; Col. 35, Ln. 51 – “Digital avatars may be displayed”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Gadre with Tan for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Additionally, Soon-Shiong teaches a similar method of virtual shopping (Soon-Shiong: [abstract]), including
asking the end user questions; and that requests may be questions from (Soon-Shiong: [0063] – “Device 515 or display 520 can then present a question…to user 526 to initiate”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Soon-Shiong with Tan/Gadre for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 3, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong teaches the medium of claim 1. Tan further discloses
wherein the program instructions further comprise generating a digital showroom replicating a real-life showroom in the physical building of the automobile dealership and wherein the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles is in a virtual location of the digital showroom that corresponds to a physical location of the real-life showroom (Tan: [0025] and Fig. 1 – “User 110 may be viewing a virtual showroom image 120 displayed on the screen (or monitor, LCD display, VR headset, etc.). The showroom may be a complete or partial realistic or generated representation of an actual or ideal showroom. For example, a specific showroom located in a city may be videoed or photographed and used for the virtual showroom display”; [0028] – “the virtual showroom may be configured to display a vehicle with the suitable options available, given inventory, etc.”; [0025] and Fig. 1 – “FIG. 1 illustrates a view of a virtual showroom application 100 displayed on a user device in an embodiment”; the examiner notes Fig. 1 displays vehicles in the showroom).
In regards to claim 4, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong teaches the medium of claim 1. Tan further discloses
wherein the program instructions further comprise generating a digital lot outside of the digital replica of the automobile dealership replicating a real-life lot outside of the physical building of the automobile dealership and wherein the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles is in a virtual location of the digital lot that corresponds to a physical location of the real-life lot (Tan: [0030] – “Augmented reality mode 330 may utilize a user's device camera features in order to obtain augmented reality information. For example, a user may hold up their smart phone and capture a vehicle model on their screen (via user device camera features). Augmented reality information may then be presented (overlaid) on the vehicle image. In an embodiment, a user may use this mode at a dealership only. In an embodiment, a user may use the mode anywhere their mobile device has communication services. For example, a user may be at a…parking lot and notice a vehicle they think is cool. They may use the augmented reality mode and point their smart phone at the vehicle to receive augmented reality information about that vehicle. In an embodiment, if a user doesn't see the model of vehicle they want to receive augmented information on, the mode may comprise a 3D model feature 355, The 3D model feature 355 may allow the user to select a virtual model and ‘drop’ it into the image as if it was there and receive augmented reality information on it. The 3D model feature 355 may be used for any of the disclosed modes…A user may be able to switch between modes. For example, a user may be using ideal or generated showroom mode 320 at a dealership, and walk outside and switch to augmented reality mode 330”).
In regards to claim 6, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong teaches the medium of claim 1. Tan further discloses the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles (Tan: [0028]). Yet Tan does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital sales interface includes a network connection to a third-party financial institute, wherein the digital sales interface is configured to provide an approval of financing from the third-party financial institute to the end user for purchase of.
However, Soon-Shiong teaches a similar method of virtual shopping (Soon-Shiong: [abstract]), including
wherein the digital sales interface includes a network connection to a third-party financial institute, wherein the digital sales interface is configured to provide an approval of financing from the third-party financial institute to the end user for purchase of (Soon-Shiong: [0086] – “a transaction can be initiated by the user's device, through a point of sales terminal (e.g., cash register, credit card reader, NFC device, bar code scanner, etc.), a back end product management server, the planogram server, or other component within the ecosystem…a person can enter their account information into their cell phone, which in turn interactions with a point-of-sales device via NFC. The point-of-sales device communicates with one or more back end servers operated by a bank or credit card company. Confirmation for the transaction is then sent back to the point-of-sales device and then presented to the person on their cell phone via the NFC communications link”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Soon-Shiong with Tan/Gadre for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a method. Claim 11 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a medium. The combined medium of Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Tan further discloses a computer implemented method of generating a virtual automobile dealership platform, comprising (Tan: [0004]). Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claim 12-14 and 16, all the limitations in method claims 12-14 and 16 are closely parallel to the limitations of medium claims 2-4 and 6 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, in view of Gadre, in view of Soon-Shiong, in view of Tsuda et al. (US 20220245716 A1), hereinafter Tsuda.
In regards to claim 5, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong teaches the medium of claim 1. Yet Tan does not explicitly disclose wherein the program instructions further comprise generating a virtual test drive by the end user of a selected one of the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles.
However, Tsuda teaches a similar method of virtual shopping (Tsuda: [0098]), including
wherein the program instructions further comprise generating a virtual test drive by the end user of a selected one of the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles (Tsuda: [0098] – “In a case where the object is a virtual automobile, causing the avatar to get in the automobile and drive (test-drive) based on a user operation corresponds to combining here.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the test drive of Tsuda in the method of Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong because Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong already discloses a shopping environment and Tsuda is merely demonstrating that a test drive may happen. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included wherein the program instructions further comprise generating a virtual test drive by the end user of a selected one of the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles as taught by Tsuda because test drives are well-known and the use of it in a shopping setting would have allowed for performing various transaction actions in a preferred virtual space (Tsuda: [0006]).
In regards to claim 15, all the limitations in method claim 15 are closely parallel to the limitations of medium claim 5 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, in view of Gadre, in view of Soon-Shiong, in view of Drouot et al. (US 20200328891 A1), hereinafter Drouot.
In regards to claim 7, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong teaches the medium of claim 1. Tan further discloses the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles (Tan: [0028]). Yet Tan does not explicitly disclose wherein the program instructions further comprise generating, by the processor, a smart contract associated with the sale of.
However, Drouot teaches a similar method of transactions (Drouot: [0017]), including
wherein the program instructions further comprise generating, by the processor, a smart contract associated with the sale of (Drouot: [0017] – “a ‘transaction’ can refer to a sale of an asset token, a sale of a non-fungible asset, a partial sale of an asset token, a partial sale of a non-fungible asset”; [0031] – “The transaction can be carried out in accordance with, and based on, rules defined by a smart contract”; [0011] –“ Example asset types include…automobiles”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the smart contract of Drouot in the method of Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong because Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong already discloses a shopping environment and Drouot is merely demonstrating that a smart contract may be used. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included wherein the program instructions further comprise generating, by the processor, a smart contract associated with the sale of as taught by Drouot because smart contracts are well-known and the use of it in a shopping setting would have provided improved scalability and consistency of transaction processing, and/or reduced costs (Drouot: [0029]).
In regards to claim 8, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong/Drouot teaches the medium of claim 7. Yet Tan does not explicitly disclose wherein the program instructions further comprise determining, by the processor, the smart contract has been fulfilled after a verification of the smart contract through a blockchain network.
However, Drouot teaches a similar method of transactions (Drouot: [0017]), including
wherein the program instructions further comprise determining, by the processor, the smart contract has been fulfilled after a verification of the smart contract through a blockchain network (Drouot: [0016] – “Smart contracts can allow the performance of credible transactions without the participation of the contracting parties and without the participation of third parties. A smart contract can be stored, executed and/or transacted on a distributed ledger such as a blockchain. Smart contract transactions are trackable and irreversible”; [0030] –“ The at least one remote compute device 328 can include blockchain data 328F, for example acting as part of a peer-to-peer blockchain network”; [0031] – “Once the token ID has been generated, an asset token associated with the token ID (optionally generated in parallel with the generation of the token ID) can be transacted, at 448, on a distributed ledger (e.g., a blockchain). The transaction can be carried out in accordance with, and based on, rules defined by a smart contract. Transactions of the asset token can be authenticated prior to being recorded on the blockchain. For example, the method 400 can further include attempting to authenticate a transaction of the asset token in response to a real-world transaction associated with the non-fungible asset”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Drouot with Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 7.
In regards to claim 9, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong/Drouot teaches the medium of claim 8. Tan further discloses the virtual automobile dealership platform (Tan: [0025]) and the one or more of the digital versions of the automobiles (Tan: [0028]). Yet Tan does not explicitly disclose wherein the program instructions further comprise generating a digital token usable in the platform, wherein the sale of versions is transacted using the digital token.
However, Drouot teaches a similar method of transactions (Drouot: [0017]), including
wherein the program instructions further comprise generating a digital token usable in the platform, wherein the sale of versions is transacted using the digital token (Drouot: [0032] and Fig. 5 – “component relationships for an implementation of a system for full on-chain blockchain representation of complex assets, according to some embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5, each asset from a collection of assets can be represented by three token types: …a non-fungible product token 562”; [0004] – “Transactions involving the asset tokens (also referred to herein as “intelligent asset tokens”) can be authenticated, for example in response to a real-world transaction associated with the non-fungible asset”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Drouot with Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 8.
In regards to claim 10, Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong/Drouot teaches the medium of claim 9. Yet Tan does not explicitly disclose wherein the digital token is a non-fungible token.
However, Drouot teaches a similar method of transactions (Drouot: [0017]), including
wherein the digital token is a non-fungible token (Drouot: [0032] and Fig. 5 – “component relationships for an implementation of a system for full on-chain blockchain representation of complex assets, according to some embodiments. As shown in FIG. 5, each asset from a collection of assets can be represented by three token types: …a non-fungible product token 562”; [0004] – “Transactions involving the asset tokens (also referred to herein as “intelligent asset tokens”) can be authenticated, for example in response to a real-world transaction associated with the non-fungible asset”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Drouot with Tan/Gadre/Soon-Shiong for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 9.
In regards to claim 17-20, all the limitations in method claims 17-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of medium claims 7-10 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL reference U teaches virtual car shopping. Hologram cars may be displayed to a person and a person can manipulate the display to determine care features. Car images may be projected in front of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689