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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the newly added limitations and the rejection made under §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (see rejection below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12,14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12,14 and 17-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system. Claim 11 recites a method.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 11, taken as representative, recites the abstract idea of managing add-ons for delivery service orders. This idea is described by the following steps:
providing the at least one artwork display wherein the at least one artwork is one or more of a physical piece of artwork or a digital artwork display screen; and
interacting with the at least one artwork display by providing a visual artwork popularity indicator for the at least one artwork display and/or a visual artwork availability indicator for the at least one artwork display.
Claim 1 recites equivalent limitations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite commercial interactions. In particular given their BRI, the limitations are considered an abstract idea of being certain methods of organizing human activity such as, marketing/sales activities. The limitations encompass a system/method for displaying/providing and interacting with artwork indicators/information about sale status, which as claimed in dependent claims 7 and 17 recite the indicators that are being interacted with (number of views, available to buy, price if available to buy or bid on at auction) and/or popularity ratings. These are all common marketing and sales activities businesses perform in an effort to get consumers to purchase their products. Consumers interact with product (artwork) information (indicators) before making a decision to purchase a product. As noted in the instant specification, Pg. 6, lines 1-6; the traditional experience provides a label with a piece of artwork, the “device” of the present invention is disposed next to the artwork.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1 and 11 recite an extended reality (XR) device, the (XR) device capability being an augmented reality AR display or a virtual reality (VR) display. The recitation of the additional elements of a user (XR) device merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the recitation of these additional elements in the claim generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., a computerized environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
As such, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d)
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 11 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1 and 11 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 11 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 11 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12,14 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170345215 to Khedkar et al. discloses an interactive virtual reality platforms. The interactive VR content items may include instructions that execute particular actions for specific readings from the sensors of the HMD. Referring again to the ecommerce example, the interactive content items may display products for sale such as furniture and the interaction points allow the user to select specific products, browse product information and make a purchase without exiting the immersive VR environment.
WO 2017/070121 to Powderly et al. discloses systems and methods for interacting with virtual objects in a three-dimensional space using a wearable device. In an AR experience, the user of the wearable system (such as a HMD) can view physical objects (e.g., another person and a house) as well as the virtual entertainment display. The wearable display system further comprising an image capture device configured to capture an image of a region comprising physical objects, wherein the wearable display system is configured to display virtual content that is perceived by a user to be associated with one or more of the physical objects.
US 20150126279 to Lyons et al. discloses a method of enabling an augmented reality tracking system and a mobile device to display augmented reality by overlaying a virtual 3D object over a physical 3D object. The method includes: enabling a user to capture a live camera image of a 3D object via camera on the mobile device; determining if there are image tags on the 3D object in the live camera image; using the one or more image tags to access information used by the augmented reality system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights