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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 20,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a method, which is interpreted as a process..
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes
The claim recites, receiving, virtual item data associated with a virtual item in a virtual world environment; deconstructing, the virtual item into a set of virtual item subcomponents based on metadata associated with the virtual item; determining, candidate physical items for at least one virtual item subcomponent from a physical item database, these elements are mental activity as a person can mentally divide a virtual item and determine matching candidates physical items from a list of physical items.
The limitation, determining, similarity scores between the at least one virtual item subcomponent and the candidate physical items based on item information obtained from a virtual item database and the physical item database, is a mathematical calculation.
The limitation, determining, availability statuses of the candidate physical items based on third-party item information; and selecting, a corresponding physical item for the at least one virtual item subcomponent based on the similarity scores and the availability statuses, is directed to a mental activity because a person can mentally check availability of status of a physical object and select the best matching physical item based on matching score.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
NO
The claim recites additional elements “a computing system” that performs the above discussed limitations. A computer system performing the mental activity and mathematical relation doesn’t integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application. The limitation doesn’t output a practical application and thus additional elements doesn’t integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More
NO
There is no additional element that amounts to significantly more that judicial exception. Using a computer to make the and best matching object is a routine activity and therefore doesn’t amount to significantly more.
Therefore claim 20 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because additionally claim recites, deconstructing comprises generating the set of virtual item subcomponents by splitting the virtual item according to stored original components indicated by the metadata, which is a mental activity. There is no additional element in the limitation that amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 22 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because additionally claim recites, determining candidate physical items comprises providing a set of similar physical items that outputs similar physical items from the physical item database is a mental activity. The limitation performs the mental additional element, using a similarity physical item scorer and that doesn’t amount to significantly more that judicial exception because of routine activity.
Claim 23 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, determining similarity scores comprises comparing item attributes including at least one of name, description, sizing, features, labels, keywords, images, location, or orientation is a mathematical function or mental activity. There is no additional element in the limitation that amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 24 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because additionally claim recites, determining similarity scores comprises computing image similarity using a machine learning model.. The user of a generic machine learning model to perform the mental activity or math functions doesn’t amount to significantly more that judicial exception because of routine activity.
Claim 25 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, wherein determining availability statuses comprises obtaining the third-party item information via at least one of third-party application programming interfaces (APIs), web scraping, or RSS feeds and application programming interfaces (APIs), web scraping, or RSS feeds are common elements that provides status information. Therefore this additional element doesn’t amount to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 26 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, wherein determining availability statuses comprises receiving an availability flag stored in the physical item database, wherein the availability flag is updated in real time or at a predefined time interval, which is a mental activity and there is no additional element in the limitation that amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 27 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, generating physical-world coordinators corresponding to the selected corresponding physical item, which is a mental activity and there is no additional element in the limitation that amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 28 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites initiating a transaction for the selected corresponding physical item using order fulfillment information associated with the selected corresponding physical item, which are routine activity of order processing and performing it by a competing system doesn’t amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 29 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites transmitting video or audio between the virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a video/audio transmission controller, which are routine activity performed by a computing system and the additional element doesn’t amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 30 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, transmitting video or audio that is associated with the selected corresponding physical item between the virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a transmission controller which are routine activities and thus the additional elements doesn’t amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 31 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, transmitting comprises selecting one or more virtual output devices for output of the video or audio using a virtual device output aggregator, and selecting one or more physical output devices for output of the video or audio using a physical device output aggregator, which are additional elements but these additional computing elements are common device to transmit and display image or data. So the additional elements doesn’t amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Regarding claim 32,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a system which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes
The claim recites, receive, virtual item data associated with a virtual item in a virtual world environment; deconstruct, the virtual item into a set of virtual item subcomponents based on metadata associated with the virtual item; determine candidate physical items for at least one virtual item subcomponent from a physical item database, these elements are mental activity as a person can mentally divide a virtual item and determine matching candidates physical items from a list of physical items.
The limitation, determine similarity scores between the at least one virtual item subcomponent and the candidate physical items based on item information obtained from a virtual item database and the physical item database, is a mathematical calculation.
The limitation, determining, availability statuses of the candidate physical items based on third-party item information; and selecting, a corresponding physical item for the at least one virtual item subcomponent based on the similarity scores and the availability statuses, is directed to a mental activity because a person can mentally check availability of status of a physical object and select the best matching physical item based on matching score.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
NO
The claim recites additional elements “a computing device having a processor and addressable memory comprising a virtual item sync module, a virtual deconstruct or component, a similarity scorer component, an availability component, the item matching component”, that perform the above discussed abstract idea limitations. A computer system performing the mental activity and mathematical relation doesn’t integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application. The limitation doesn’t output a practical application and thus additional elements doesn’t integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More
NO
There are no additional element that amounts to significantly more that judicial exception. Using a computer to make the and best matching object is a routine activity and therefore doesn’t amount to significantly more.
Therefore claim 32 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 33 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because additionally claim recites, generate physical-world coordinators corresponding to the selected corresponding physical item., which is a mental activity. There is no additional element in the limitation that amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 34 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because additionally claim recites, determining similarity scores comprises computing image similarity using a machine learning model.. The user of a generic machine learning model to perform the mental activity or math functions doesn’t amount to significantly more that judicial exception because of routine activity.
Claim 35 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, wherein determining availability statuses comprises obtaining the third-party item information via at least one of third-party application programming interfaces (APIs), web scraping, or RSS feeds and application programming interfaces (APIs), web scraping, or RSS feeds are common elements that provides status information. Therefore this additional element doesn’t amount to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 36 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, transmit video or audio between the virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a transmission controller which are routine activities and thus the additional elements doesn’t amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 37 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, aggregate available virtual output devices using a virtual device output aggregator and aggregate available physical output devices using a physical device output aggregator but these additional computing elements are common device to transmit and display image or data. So the additional elements doesn’t amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 38 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, system to control the physical output devices using a physical device software development kit (SDK) and to control the virtual output devices using a virtual device controller. but these additional computing elements are common devices/software to control the physical output devices and to control the virtual output devices So the additional elements doesn’t amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim 39 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more because it additionally recites, receive, a plurality of user preferences corresponding to a plurality of users; generate, a group preference aggregate by applying collaborative filtering to the plurality of user preferences; determine, an aggregated virtual POI based on the group preference aggregate, a virtual POI database, and a current virtual space constraint, generate the transaction into a plurality of corresponding physical transactions; which are mental activity because a person cam mentally perform these activities.
Additionally, Claim 39 recites generic hardware/software components to perform the above mental activities The limitation also uses generic hardware/software elements to transmit the plurality of corresponding physical transactions to at least one third-party vendor system , wherein each of the plurality of corresponding physical transactions is determined based on the third-party item information used to determine availability statuses of candidate physical items. But these additional computing elements are common devices/software to control the physical output devices and to control the virtual output devices So the additional elements doesn’t amounts to significantly more that judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 39 is 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.
Claim 39 recites “transmit, by a third-party transaction sync component, the plurality of corresponding physical transactions to at least one third-party vendor system via a third-party vendor application programming interface (API), wherein each of the plurality of corresponding physical transactions is determined based on the third-party item information used to determine availability statuses of candidate physical items. Applicant doesn’t have support for the underlined portion.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites “the physical output devices” and “the virtual output devices”. The phrases have lack of antecedent basis that makes the claim indefinite.
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) 20-27 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovitt (US Patent No. 11755275 “Lovitt”) in view of Walker et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20190240580 “Walker”) and Chu et al. (US Patent No. 8401911 “Chu”).
Regarding claim 32 Lovitt teaches A system including a computing device having a processor and addressable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (Col 7 lines 33-36 “The augmented reality system can further utilize more or fewer physical objects within a physical environment depending on the processing and memory capabilities of a given augmented-reality-computing device. Col 11 lines 49-54 “Thus, in some embodiments, the augmented-reality-computing devices 106a and 106b are similar to eyeglasses with all the component parts built-in. In one or more embodiments, the augmented-reality-computing devices 106a and 106b also include at least one processor capable of executing software code”), cause the system to:
receive, by a virtual item sync module (Integral part of augmented reality system), virtual item data associated with a virtual item in a virtual world environment (Col 41 lines 15-21 “In particular embodiments, augmented reality system 1002 may be a network-addressable computing system that can host an online augmented reality system. Augmented reality system 1002 may generate, store, receive, and send augmented reality data, such as, for example, augmented reality scenes, augmented reality experiences, virtual objects, or other suitable data related to the augmented reality system 1002”);
However Lovitt is silent about deconstruct, by a virtual item deconstructor component, virtual item into a set of virtual item subcomponents based on metadata associated with the virtual item;
Walker teaches deconstruct, by a virtual item deconstructor component (integral part of computer 101), the virtual item into a set of virtual item subcomponents based on metadata associated with the virtual item (“[0121] FIG. 4 illustrates another example of a user-assisted selection process for selecting a part of the object based on the detection of a predetermined feature. In the example of FIG. 4, the process initially performs an object segmentation process, e.g. using a mesh segmentation algorithm or by detecting toy construction elements or other predetermined components of an object”);
Lovitt and Walker are analogous art as both of them are related to virtual content processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt by deconstructing virtual item into a set of virtual item subcomponents based on metadata associated with the virtual item as taught by Walker.
The motivation for the above is to achieve overall better matching of physical element with a part of virtual object.
Lovitt modified by Walker teaches determine, by an item matching component, candidate physical items for at least one virtual item subcomponent from a physical item database (Lovitt Col 12 lines 16-22 “The augmented reality system 102 can further determine a physical object corresponds to an analogous virtual object 204. More specifically, the augmented reality system 102 can determine that a physical object in the physical environment corresponds to an analogous virtual object in the augmented reality experience. Col 19 lines 1-7 The augmented reality system 102 can further identify and classify the physical object 404. For example, the augmented reality system 102 can analyze an image frame from the image stream captured by the augmented-reality-computing device 106a to determine that the physical object 404 is a smart speaker utilizing a wireless protocol. Based on identifying the physical object 404 as a smart speaker, the augmented reality system 102 can further utilize web lookups, database lookups”);
determine, by a similarity scorer component, similarity scores between the at least one virtual item subcomponent and the candidate physical items based on item information obtained from a virtual item database and the physical item database (Lovitt Col 4 lines 64-66 “For instance, the augmented reality system can determine a physical object matches an analogous virtual object based on an object-matching score or other appropriate techniques. Col 8 lines 59-60 A virtual object can have features, characteristics, and other qualities (e.g., as defined by a model, a file, a database)”);
However Lovitt modified by Walker is silent about determine, by an availability component, availability statuses of the candidate physical items based on third-party item information; and
Chu teaches determine, by an availability component (integral part of processor 360), availability statuses of the candidate physical items based on third-party item information (Col 3 lines 43-45 “In the same or additional embodiments, a product availability estimation system may be implemented as part of a commercial retailer's computer system or as part of a third party computer system. Col 29 lines 53-56 Block 1720 depicts the search of the merchant's inventory to determine whether the identified product is in stock. This step is accomplished by checking whether the product identified in the product popularity database 1460 is identified as available, in-stock, out-of stock, of limited availability, or otherwise in the product availability database 147”);
Chu and Lovitt modified by Walker are analogous art as both of them are related to processing of data;
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt modified by Walker by determining availability statuses of the candidate physical items based on third-party item information as taught by Chu.
The motivation for the above is to focus/limit searching in useful physical objects.
Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu teaches select, by the item matching component, a corresponding physical item for the at least one virtual item subcomponent based on the similarity scores and the availability statuses ( After including Chu’s teaching with Lovitt, now Lovitt has availability data of physical object
Lovitt Col 19 lines 1-10 “The augmented reality system 102 can further identify and classify the physical object 404. For example, the augmented reality system 102 can analyze an image frame from the image stream captured by the augmented-reality-computing device 106a to determine that the physical object 404 is a smart speaker utilizing a wireless protocol. Based on identifying the physical object 404 as a smart speaker, the augmented reality system 102 can further utilize web lookups, database lookups, and other info to determine features and characteristics associated with the physical object 404”).
Claim 20 is directed to a method claim and its steps are similar in scope and functions performed by the system claim 32 and therefore claim 20 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu teaches wherein deconstructing comprises generating the set of virtual item subcomponents by splitting the virtual item according to stored original components indicated by the metadata (Walker “[0123] As mentioned above, the automatic segmentation may be based on a detection of individual toy construction elements or other components in the representation of the real-world object. To this end, the process may have access to a library of representations of a plurality of known toy construction elements or other known components. The known components may be stored as CAD files or as representations”).
Regarding claim 22 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu teaches wherein determining candidate physical items comprises providing a set of similar physical items using a similarity physical item scorer that outputs similar physical items from the physical item database (Lovitt Col 13 lines 3-14 “The augmented reality system 102 can then determine that one or more physical objects of the physical environment correspond to one or more virtual objects of the augmented reality experience based on the identified characteristics and features of both the virtual objects of the augmented reality experience and the physical objects of the physical environment. For example, the augmented reality system 102 can calculate an object-matching score between each physical object and each virtual object indicating a degree to which one or more features or characteristics of each physical object match one or more features or characteristics of each virtual object”).
Regarding claim 23 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu teaches wherein determining similarity scores comprises comparing item attributes including at least one of name, description, sizing, features, labels, keywords, images, location, or orientation (Lovitt Col 32 lines 46-50 “For example, determining that the physical object within the physical environment corresponds to the analogous virtual object of an augmented reality experience can be based on image comparisons, description comparisons”).
Regarding claims 24 and 34 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu teaches wherein determining similarity scores comprises computing image similarity using a machine learning model (Lovitt Col 32 lines 47-51 “For example, determining that the physical object within the physical environment corresponds to the analogous virtual object of an augmented reality experience can be based on image comparisons, description comparisons, heat maps, and/or machine learning”).
Regarding claims 25 and 35 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu teaches, wherein determining availability statuses comprises obtaining the third-party item information via at least one of third-party application programming interfaces (APIs), web scraping, or RSS feeds (Chu Col3 lines 43-47 “In the same or additional embodiments, a product availability estimation system may be implemented as part of a commercial retailer's computer system or as part of a third party computer system. The product availability estimation system may be used to estimate the availability of any given product that a commercial retailer offers for sale”).
Regarding claim 26 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu teaches wherein determining availability statuses comprises receiving an availability flag stored in the physical item database, wherein the availability flag is updated in real time or at a predefined time interval (Chu Col 29 53-67 “Block 1720 depicts the search of the merchant's inventory to determine whether the identified product is in stock. This step is accomplished by checking whether the product identified in the product popularity database 1460 is identified as available, in-stock, out-of stock, of limited availability, or otherwise in the product availability database 1470. Block 1725 depicts the determination whether a product is in-stock. If the product is in-stock (including limited availability), the next step, as depicted in step 1730, is to flag or otherwise note the identified product as being an in-stock, popular product. If the product is not in-stock, according to the identifier assigned to the product in the product availability database, the iterative process branches to step 1740, described hereinafter. After the product is flagged as depicted in block 1730, the method determines whether to identify additional products, as depicted in block 1735”).
Regarding claims 27 and 33 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu teaches further comprising generating physical-world coordinators corresponding to the selected corresponding physical item (Lovitt Col 13 lines 9-14 “For example, the augmented reality system 102 can calculate an object-matching score between each physical object and each virtual object indicating a degree to which one or more features or characteristics of each physical object match one or more features or characteristics of each virtual object”).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Chenault et al. (US Pat. No. 8386323 “Chenault”).
Regarding claim 28 even though Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu initiating a transaction for the selected corresponding physical item (Chu Col 27 lines 23-28 “The product popularity database 1460 may contain a list of products ranked by popularity. The list of products can be generated by input from merchant servers 1480 and also by data servers 1490. The data server may take into account recent transactions over the Internet, typical search terms used in attempting to locate, read about, or purchase products over the Internet”) but is silent about order fulfillment information associated with the selected corresponding physical item.
Chenault teaches initiating a transaction for the selected corresponding physical item using order fulfillment information associated with the selected corresponding physical item (Col 3 line 60-col 4 lines 20 “The web system typically processes such requests using information provided by back-end components discussed below in conjunction with FIG. 2, and replies to each with a served page 132. For example, for a page view request requesting an item detail page, the served page is the requested item detail page, containing information about the availability of the item, as well as any controls for ordering the item that are consistent with the item's availability. For a page view request conveying item ordering instructions, such as those generated by the user by activating an ordering control included in an earlier-served item detail page for the same item, the served page is an order confirmation page in cases in which the page view request is sent when the item is available to order….. The item availability model models the level of availability of at least a portion of the items that may be ordered from the web merchant, and is maintained by the web system using a stream of availability updates 211, each reflecting a change in the availability status of an item”);
Chenault and Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu are analogous art as both of them are related to processing of data;
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu by initiating a transaction for the selected corresponding physical item using order fulfillment information associated with the selected corresponding physical item as taught by Chenault.
The motivation for the above is to correctly process an order based on availability.
Claim(s) 29, 30 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu as applied to claims 20 and 32 above, and further in view of CARTWRIGHT et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20190385372 “Cartwright”).
Regarding claims 29 and 36 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu is silent about transmitting video or audio between the virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a video/audio transmission controller.
Cartwright teaches transmitting video or audio between virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a video/audio transmission controller (“[0004] In some embodiments, a system for presenting visual information to a user includes a near-eye display, at least one outward facing camera, and an input device. A processor is in data communication with the near-eye display, the input device, and the outward facing camera. A hardware storage device is in data communication with the processor and contains instructions thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: present a virtual environment to a user, image a physical environment of the user, identify at least one surface in the physical environment using the outward facing camera, position a passthrough portal in the virtual environment based on the location of the surface in the physical environment, and present a video feed of the physical environment in the passthrough portal of the virtual environment”);
Cartwright and Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu are analogous art as both of them are related to processing of data;
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu by transmitting video or audio between virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a video/audio transmission controller as taught by Cartwright.
The motivation for the above is provide remote collaboration between worlds.
Regarding claim 30 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu is silent about transmitting video or audio that is associated with the selected corresponding physical item between the virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a transmission controller.
Cartwright teaches transmitting video or audio that is associated with a physical item between virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a transmission controller (“[0004] In some embodiments, a system for presenting visual information to a user includes a near-eye display, at least one outward facing camera, and an input device. A processor is in data communication with the near-eye display, the input device, and the outward facing camera. A hardware storage device is in data communication with the processor and contains instructions thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: present a virtual environment to a user, image a physical environment of the user, identify at least one surface in the physical environment using the outward facing camera, position a passthrough portal in the virtual environment based on the location of the surface in the physical environment, and present a video feed of the physical environment in the passthrough portal of the virtual environment”);
Cartwright and Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu are analogous art as both of them are related to processing of data;
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu by transmitting video or audio that is associated with the selected corresponding physical item between the virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a transmission controller similar to transmitting video or audio that is associated with a physical item between virtual world environment and a physical world environment using a transmission controller as taught by Cartwright.
The motivation for the above is provide remote collaboration between worlds.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartweight as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Caliendo et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20160266751 “Caliendo”).
Regarding claim 31 , Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartweight is silent about selecting one or more virtual output devices for output of the video or audio using a virtual device output aggregator, and selecting one or more physical output devices for output of the video or audio using a physical device output aggregator.
Caliendo teaches selecting one or more virtual output devices and selecting one or more physical output devices for output (“[0039] At step 610, the process retrieves user preferences from configuration data store 480. At step 620, the process selects the first virtual display based on the retrieved user preferences……. At step 630, the process selects the first physical display based on user preferences”);
Caliendo and Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartwright are analogous art as both of them are related to processing of data;
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartwright by selecting one or more virtual output devices for output of the video or audio using a virtual device output aggregator, and selecting one or more physical output devices for output of the video or audio using a physical device output aggregator similar to selecting one or more virtual output devices and selecting one or more physical output devices for output as taught by Caliendo.
The motivation for the above is to change the property of one device based on another device.
Claim(s) 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartweight as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Chiu et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20090243957 “Ni”).
Regarding claim 37, Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartweight is silent about aggregate available virtual output devices using a virtual device output aggregator and aggregate available physical output devices using a physical device output aggregator.
Ni teaches aggregate available virtual output devices using a virtual device output aggregator and aggregate available physical output devices using a physical device output aggregator (“[0038] FIG. 1B depicts a photographic illustration of the physical MDE that includes multiple displays in a 3D space, according to one embodiment of the invention; [0040] FIG. 2 depicts a graphical illustration of a virtual MDE that includes multiple virtual displays in a virtual 3D space, according to one embodiment of the invention”);
Ni and Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartwright are analogous art as both of them are related to processing of data;
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartwright by aggregating available virtual output devices using a virtual device output aggregator and aggregate available physical output devices using a physical device output aggregator as taught by Ni.
The motivation for the above is to have a better organization of display devices.
Regarding claim 38, Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartweight is silent about wherein the instructions further cause the system to control the physical output devices using a physical device software development kit (SDK) and to control the virtual output devices using a virtual device controller.
Ni teaches control the physical output devices using a physical device software development kit (SDK) and to control the virtual output devices using a virtual device controller (“0050] A physical multi-display environment can be easily and inexpensively put together using off the shelf products. The wall displays can be large flat panels (e.g. LCD, plasma, etc.) or projection displays (front or rear projected). These large displays can be driven by PCs. Mobile displays can be Tablet PCs, laptops, handheld devices, etc. [0051] All the displays can be connected to a local area network with wired or wireless connections. The computers that drive the displays communicate with one another on the network to coordinate the visualization and interaction. The visualization applications on the displays can communicate with each other over the network using software such as Java Remote Method Indication ("Java RMI") or XML-Remote Procedure Call ("XML-RPC"). A more sophisticated option is to use a message broker like Apache ActiveMQ (The Apache Software Foundation, http://activemq.apache.org). The embodiment described herein uses software similar to ActiveMQ. [0054] For virtual or mixed physical-virtual MDEs, the virtual part can be built using platforms such as Sun Virtual Workplace MPK20 (Sun Microsystems, Santa Clara, Calif.; http://research.sun.com/projects/mc/mpk20.html (link visited Aug. 29, 2007)), or Second Life (Linden Research, Inc., San Francisco, Calif.; http://secondlife.com (link visited Aug. 29, 2007)). The virtual displays are objects in the virtual world that are modeled after real world display”);
Ni and Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartwright are analogous art as both of them are related to processing of data;
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Cartwright by controlling the physical output devices using a physical device software development kit (SDK) and to control the virtual output devices using a virtual device controller r as taught by Ni.
The motivation for the above is to provide communication between physical or virtual devices.
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Whalin et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20190273627 “Whalin”).
Regarding claim 39 Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu is silent about receive, by a user preference fuser component, a plurality of user preferences corresponding to a plurality of users; generate, by a user preference aggregator component, a group preference aggregate by applying collaborative filtering to the plurality of user preferences; determine, by a virtual point of interest (POI) aggregation component, an aggregated virtual POI based on the group preference aggregate, a virtual POI database, and a current virtual space constraint; determine, by a virtual point of interest (POI) aggregation component, an aggregated virtual POI based on the group preference aggregate, a virtual POI database, and a current virtual space constraint; generate, by the system, a transaction associated with the aggregated virtual POI; split, by an order splitter component, the transaction into a plurality of corresponding physical transactions;
Whalin teaches receive, by a user preference fuser component (“[0242] The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor”. Integral part of the processor), a plurality of user preferences corresponding to a plurality of users; generate, by a user preference aggregator component, a group preference aggregate by applying collaborative filtering to the plurality of user preferences (“[0195] In embodiments, the present invention may implement a computer implemented method for providing recommendations for an in-person meeting group, comprising collecting user information (e.g. user information from a member user's activity on the web-based meeting facility, user information from a non-member user as a guest to a meeting group, user information from a user derived from a social network site, and the like), where the user information provides information related to topical interests and location information for at least one of multiple users;…..the recommendation may be based on a collaborative filtering algorithm that is based on analyzing similarities between interests of a user and interests of a member of a group”);
determine, by a virtual point of interest (POI) aggregation component (“[0242] The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor”. Integral part of the processor), an aggregated virtual POI based on the group preference aggregate, a virtual POI database, and a current virtual space constraint (“[0013] General information postings, such as ads or articles in print media and signs posted around town, are well known. This approach starts with a meeting at a date and time certain, and then advertises the meeting. Posting such notices in common locations such as a town square or popular bulletin board is now possible online as well. One such example of this approach is a “craigslist” type website (see, e.g., dc.craigslist.com), where people wishing to advertise meetings can easily make such a posting. [0119] To set up a gathering, the candidate venues for the gathering are selected at step 205. The system has a database of venues for public meetings, including information on opening hours and suitability for various kinds of chapters. The system offers a variety of choices to facilitate the selection of venues for the gatherings. [0120] In addition, members may provide inputs to propose candidate venues. Venues may be organized by types. A categorization for venues may include a multi-level hierarchical listing similar to the one described above for topics of interest. For example, a particular coffee house may be categorized as follows: it is under the broad category “public places” and then under the narrower type of “coffee shops”);
generate, by the system, a transaction associated with the aggregated virtual POI; split, by an order splitter component, the transaction into a plurality of corresponding physical transactions (“[0123] When the optional additional voting period ends, the system tallies up the number of votes for various candidate venues in step 235, informs the members of the winning venue, and invites the members to make a reservation (RSVP) for the gathering. To prevent gatherings growing too large for a given venue, the system can also make a determination to split the gathering between two or more venues, based on a configurable threshold of votes, when more than one venue has received a minimum number of votes”);
Whalin and Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu are analogous as both of them are related to user data processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu by receiving, by a user preference fuser component, a plurality of user preferences corresponding to a plurality of users; generating, by a user preference aggregator component, a group preference aggregate by applying collaborative filtering to the plurality of user preferences; determining, by a virtual point of interest (POI) aggregation component, an aggregated virtual POI based on the group preference aggregate, a virtual POI database, and a current virtual space constraint; determining, by a virtual point of interest (POI) aggregation component, an aggregated virtual POI based on the group preference aggregate, a virtual POI database, and a current virtual space constraint; generate, by the system, a transaction associated with the aggregated virtual POI; split, by an order splitter component, the transaction into a plurality of corresponding physical transactions taught by Whalin.
The motivation for the above is to organize orders based on different users preference.
Lovitt modified by Walker and Chu and Whalin teaches transmit, by a third-party transaction sync component, the plurality of corresponding physical transactions to at least one third-party vendor system via a third-party vendor application programming interface (API), wherein each of the plurality of corresponding physical transactions is determined based on the third-party item information used to determine availability statuses of candidate physical items (Chu Col 30 lines 47-57 “As depicted in FIG. 19, place page 1900 may comprise a merchant name and address 1910, hours and contact information 1920 associated with the particular merchant location 1910, customer reviews 1930 associated with the particular merchant location 1910, a graphical depiction of a map and/or directions 1940 to the particular merchant location 1910, and a list 1950 of the popular products that are available at the particular merchant location. Other information could be included in the place page, such as expert or editorial reviews, particular comments from other users including, for example, third party users flagged or identified or followed by the first party user viewing the place page, and so on”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 04/27/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC 112 (a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 04/27/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovitt (US Patent No. 11755275 “Lovitt”) in view of Walker et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20190240580 “Walker”) and Chu et al. (US Patent No. 8401911 “Chu”).
Conclusion
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 SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights