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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/8/2025 has been entered. Claim 1, 16, and 46 are amended. Claim 47 is new. Claims 18 and 20-45 are cancelled. Claims 1-16, 17, 19, 46, and 47 are pending.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-15 and 46-47 are a method and claims 16-17, and 19-20 are a system. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-17, 19-20, and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1 and 16 with claim 1 as a representative claim below) recite:
A method comprising:
generating for display, according to a field of view, a virtual reality (VR) shopping interface based on a layout for a plurality of products, wherein the plurality of products is represented in a virtual store and wherein the layout indicates a different position with respect to the field of view for each of the plurality of products according to which the plurality of products are to be displayed;
determining a product of interest from the plurality of products, the layout indicating a position with respect to the field of view for the product of interest, wherein the product of interest is located at a first virtual location with respect to the virtual store;
based at least in part on the determined product of interest, identifying a product use, wherein the product use comprises an activity to be performed by way of the product of interest;
identifying a recommended product from the plurality of products based on the product use comprising the activity to be performed by way of the product of interest, the layout indicating a first position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product, wherein the recommended product is located at a second location with respect to the virtual store;
comparing a first relationship between the product of interest and the product use with a second relationship between the recommended product and the product use;
based at least in part on the identifying the recommended product based on the product use comprising the activity to be performed by way of the product of interest, generating an optimized layout to indicate a second position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product, wherein the position and the second position in the optimized layout are determined based at least in part on the compared first and second relationships; and
generating for display the VR shopping interface based on the optimized layout, including generating for simultaneous display both the product of interest at the position with respect to the field of view for the product of interest and the recommended product at the second position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product.
The independent claim 46 recites:
A method comprising:
generating, for display within a virtual reality (VR) shopping interface, a representation of a virtual store environment based on a predefined layout corresponding to a field of view, the layout comprising positional data with respect to the field of view for a plurality of products, wherein each product of the plurality of products is assigned a distinct virtual location within the virtual store environment;
determining a product of interest from among the plurality of products, the layout indicating a position of the product of interest, wherein the position of the product of interest corresponds to a first virtual location within the virtual store environment;
identifying, based at least in part on the product of interest, a corresponding product use, the product use comprising an activity to be performed by way of the product of interest;
selecting, from the plurality of products, a recommended product based on the identified product use, wherein the recommended product is associated with facilitating or enhancing the activity to be performed by way of the product of interest, and the layout indicating a first position of the recommended product, wherein the first position of the recommended product corresponds to a second virtual location within the virtual store environment;
comparing a first relationship between the product of interest and the product use with a second relationship between the recommended product and the product use;
optimizing the layout by repositioning the recommended product from the first position to a second position, wherein the position and the second position in the optimized layout are determined based at least in part on the compared first and second relationships, wherein the second position is determine further based on at least one of: the field of view or the position of the product of interest, such that display of the recommended product is within a certain distance of display of the product of interest in the VR shopping interface regardless of a distance between the first virtual location and the second virtual location; and
generating, for display, the VR shopping interface based on the optimized layout, wherein both the product of interest at the position and the recommended product at the second position are simultaneously rendered, wherein the positional data of the product of interest and the recommended product in the optimized layout corresponds to respective levels of natural human visual focus with respect to the field of view.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for determining products a shopper is interested in, identifying recommended product to the initial interest product and generate an optimized layout based on the products. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
a virtual reality (VR) shopping interface
A system comprising: control circuitry configured to: (claim 16)
Virtual store environment
Virtual location
The recitation of a virtual reality (VR) shopping interface; A system comprising: control circuitry configured to: (claim 16); Virtual store environment; Virtual location merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although these additional elements limit the identified judicial exception, which involves generating a display of a virtual reality shopping interface, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (virtual reality performed by generic computer components) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17, 19 and 47 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 16 and 46 without significantly more.
With respect to the dependent claims:
Claim 2 and 17 recite wherein the product use associated with the product of interest is identified based on at least one of metadata associated with the product of interest, metadata associated with a similar product to the product of interest, or user data and wherein the recommended product supplements the product of interest in accomplishing the product use. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the recommended product supplements the product of interest in accomplishing the product use. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 19 recite wherein each of the plurality of products is associated with a product importance level; wherein each position in the optimized layout is associated with a position importance level; wherein a product importance level of the product of interest corresponds with a position importance level of the position in the optimized layout; and wherein a product importance level of the recommended product corresponds with a position importance level of the second position in the optimized layout. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 20 recite wherein the product importance level of the recommended product is based on a status of the recommended product, the status being one of a required status or an optional status; wherein the recommended product has a required status if the recommended product is necessary to accomplish the product use; and wherein the recommended product has an optional status if the recommended product is not necessary to accomplish the product use. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the status of the recommended product is determined based on at least one of: (i) the product of interest, (ii) metadata associated with a similar product to the product of interest, or (iii) user data. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the product importance level of the recommended product comprises a composite score based on a level of difficulty of finding the recommended product in the first position of the layout from the position of the product of interest in the layout. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein positions of lower position importance levels are located toward a periphery of the optimized layout and wherein positions of higher position importance levels are located toward a center of the optimized layout. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein the position and the second position are relocated in the optimized layout when the recommended product is selected. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites wherein display attributes associated with displaying each of the product of interest and the recommended product comprise at least one of: distance between the product of interest and the recommended product, centrality of position with respect to the field of view, size of area occupied in the field of view, rendered object size, luminosity, transparency, focus, coloring, or labeling. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites wherein the display attributes of the recommended product is based on whether the recommended product has a required status or an optional status, wherein the recommended product is required if the recommended product is necessary for accomplishing the product use, and wherein the recommended product is optional if the recommended product is not necessary for accomplishing the product use. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites wherein the display attributes of the recommended product are based on a product importance level of the recommended product. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites further comprising: in response to receiving a selection of the recommended product displayed in the second position of the optimized layout: relocating the product of interest to a third position in the optimized layout or removing the product of interest from display; relocating the recommended product to the position in the optimized layout; and displaying a second recommended product in the second position in the optimized layout. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites further comprising: displaying a transaction status associated with the product of interest and the recommended product. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites wherein the product of interest is determined based on at least one of: a user motion, a gesture, a speech command, an input received from a control device selecting the product of interest, or a user gaze on the product of interest for a period of time. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 47 recites wherein the virtual store corresponds to a VR model comprising a plurality of respective virtual spatial relationships between products with respect to the field of view; and wherein generating the optimized layout modifies one or more of the plurality of respective virtual spatial relationships between the products with respect to the field of view without modifying the VR model. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea by adding additional data used to carry out the judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The VR model is recited in a manner directed to the relationship of the products, field of view and layout and not recited at a level of technical detail providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
For these reasons the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 16 and 46 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. All dependent claims are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of:
identifying a recommended product from the plurality of products based on the product use comprising the activity to be performed by way of the product of interest, the layout indicating a first position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product, wherein the recommended product is located at a second location with respect to the virtual store;
comparing a first relationship between the product of interest and the product use with a second relationship between the recommended product and the product use;
based at least in part on the identifying the recommended product based on the product use comprising the activity to be performed by way of the product of interest, generating an optimized layout to indicate a second position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product, wherein the position and the second position in the optimized layout are determined based at least in part on the compared first and second relationships; and
generating for display the VR shopping interface based on the optimized layout, including generating for simultaneous display both the product of interest at the position with respect to the field of view for the product of interest and the recommended product at the second position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product.
In addition to previously cited prior art, the closest prior art to the claims as amended was found to be as follows:
McCullen US 7249063 discloses an interface for presenting products coordinated with the user’s home project arranged on an interface . It teaches [Col. 8 lines 28-38] The additional touch sensitive buttons 120 that are provided on the product list screen 115 may vary based on the phase of the home improvement project selected by the user. For example, the additional buttons provided may be different if the user touches the "SET" button in the step search area 112 of the products search screen 110 to search for seller's products 80 adapted for performing the phase of setting tiles. The seller's products related to setting tile may be different than the seller's products related to preparing the area to be tiled. [Col. 9 lines 50-67] The information conveyed in the product advertisement area 106 and the information display area 108 is coordinated to further the connection between the home improvement project and the seller's products 80 adapted to perform the phases of the project. In addition to the visual depictions and direct links via touch sensitive buttons 102, 132, to the seller's products in the product advertisement area, the seller's products may be displayed in the still images, slide show images and video clip images presented in the information display area 140. For example, if the user touches the "SET" button on the tiling steps screen 220 to receive information regarding the steps that must be performed to set tiles, a video clip may be shown which illustrates tiles sold by the seller being set using adhesive sold by the seller and a package of the seller's adhesive with the identifying indicia prominently displayed (see FIG. 7). And [Col. 14 lines 15-24] The information conveyed in the product advertisement area 106 and the information display area 108 is coordinated to further the connection between the home improvement project and the seller's products 80 adapted to perform the phases of the project. In addition to the visual depictions and direct links via touch sensitive buttons 102, 132, to the seller's products in the product advertisement area, the seller's products may be displayed in the still images, slide show images and video clip images presented in the information display area 140. For example, if the user touches the "SET" button on the tiling steps screen 220 to receive information regarding the steps that must be performed to set tiles, a video clip may be shown which illustrates tiles sold by the seller being set using adhesive sold by the seller and a package of the seller's adhesive with the identifying indicia prominently displayed (see FIG. 7). However, the reference does not teach optimization of the presentation of the products within the field of view based on the relationship of those product as required in the claimed invention.
Mattingly US 20180040044 discloses the rendering of how components of the first product operate together and based on the intended use of the first product further recommends other products to be used with the first product and further causes a virtual rendering of at least one of the other products in use with the first product within the first virtual reality environment. For example in [0197] The system can further be configured to identify other products to be recommended for used with the product of interest and for which advice is to be provided. In distributing the set of code, some embodiments distribute the set of code causing the rendering of how components of the product operate together and based on the intended use of the product further cause a virtual rendering of at least one of the other products in use with the product within the virtual reality environment. In some embodiments, sensor information is received from at least one sensor of a series of sensors positioned and distributed in multiple locations in the shopping facility. A customer can be identified, and a location within the shopping facility of the first customer can be identified based on the sensor data. Based on the location within the shopping facility and products located proximate the location, a virtual reality environment and a field of expertise can be identified that is to be rendered to the customer. However, the reference does not teach optimization of the presentation of the products within the field of view based on the relationship of those product as required in the claimed invention.
NPL: “Optimizing Product Placement for Virtual Stores” discloses an approach for automatically optimizing product placement in virtual stores. The approach considers product exposure and spatial constraints, applying an optimizer to search for optimal product placement solutions (abstract). The algorithm uses spatial and exposure costs to determine the optimal placement of products within a VR store [page 337/section 3]. However, the reference does not teach optimization of the presentation of the products within the field of view based on the relationship of those product as required in the claimed invention.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 (and parallel claims 16 and 46) in combination that overcome the prior art are:
identifying a recommended product from the plurality of products based on the product use comprising the activity to be performed by way of the product of interest, the layout indicating a first position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product, wherein the recommended product is located at a second location with respect to the virtual store;
comparing a first relationship between the product of interest and the product use with a second relationship between the recommended product and the product use;
based at least in part on the identifying the recommended product based on the product use comprising the activity to be performed by way of the product of interest, generating an optimized layout to indicate a second position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product, wherein the position and the second position in the optimized layout are determined based at least in part on the compared first and second relationships; and
generating for display the VR shopping interface based on the optimized layout, including generating for simultaneous display both the product of interest at the position with respect to the field of view for the product of interest and the recommended product at the second position with respect to the field of view for the recommended product.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17, 19, and 47 are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency.
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the prior art rejection. The reasons are set forth above under “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art”. Neither the previously cited nor search rendered prior art teaching the optimization of the layout cased on the relationship of products and then presenting these products in this layout within the field of view of the customer in a VR space (as claimed in the claimed invention). The rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101, the examiner first asserts that rejection above has been updated to address the claims as amended. The examiner does not find the claim amendment to recite a technical solution to a technical problem as set forth in the remarks. The dynamic changing of the VR interface based on the relationship of the products to avoid the user needed to navigate the VR space is at most an improvement to the user’s experience. That is, the presentation of the products in a particular field of view to avoid navigation or re-rendering of the virtual interface is merely consequential of collectively presenting the products together in the interface to the user and improvement to the customer experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. Therefore, the improvement lies in the abstract idea and not an improvement to the computer functionality. The cited portions of the disclosure do not recite technical detail to support improvement to the computer itself or technical solution to a technical problem, but rather supports the assertion by the examiner that that improvement lies in the customer experience (the judicial exception) and that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. For at least these reasons, the examiner maintains the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Relevant Art Not Cited
Aguera y Arcas (US 20100241525) discloses determining relationships of how items are used together and mapping those relationships for marketing purposes.
Roesbery US 20150324725 discloses creating a table showing the scores for particular products and based on the scores, placing the products in a particular location (i.e. higher or lower on a shelf)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/16/2026