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 . Claims 1-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of Claims 1-17, and 19-20 in view of 35 USC §112(a) are withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franken (BR 102012031849) in view of Crow (US 2016/0371744), Dawson (US 2009/0037291) and Li (US 2021/0295420). All reference is to Franken unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 1, 16, and 17 (Currently Amended), Franken teaches an information providing apparatus, an information processing system and an information providing method comprising:
a processor, and a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions that cause the processor to execute [page 7 line 33 - page 8 line 5, “Particularly, the method of the present invention is implemented and run by computers connected to the Internet. Alternatively, the method may be implemented and / or performed by tablets, smartphones, or any electronic devices or microprocessor / microcontroller-capable computing devices capable of processing or executing computational algorithms”]
causing a user terminal to display a first store [page 7 lines 27-32, “the term "online store" refers to any type of e-commerce available and accessible by the world wide web (Internet). Additionally, it should be noted that the term "products" should be understood as any objects, real or virtual or services sold/offered/made commercially available through online stores ( Internet)”] in a virtual space generated by computer graphic technology [any displayed graphic is generated by computer graphic technology, fig. 1 @2], in which a user is able to shop [browsing virtual store is equivalent to shopping the virtual store],
storing, in a storage memory, behavior history information [page 8 lines 24-34, “capturing (identifying) at least one information from a user 1 of the first Internet store 2 when browsing said first web store 2. Particularly, This information captured in step a consists of at least one information regarding a login action, search, insertion in a virtual shopping cart, click offer, purchase order, payment confirmation, view/ browse a product, click recommendation showcases, or any user browsing action in the first webshop 2. Optionally or additionally, the information captured in step a can consist of one or more information relating to at least one user information 1, such as your leisure preferences, hobbies, profession, activities, etc. In other words, the user's captured or identified information consists of any kind of traceable personal information, whether browsing or registration, related to the first web store 2 …”] of the user in the first store,
in response to the user moving [construed as user detected browsing in second store] to a second store [displaying, in a navigation interface of a second web store, an image and/or information of at least one product of said second web store based on the least information captured (identified) in step a, when navigating said second web store”] subsequent to the first store in the virtual space [fig. 1 @4] generated by the computer graphic technology,
acquiring the behavior history information including a behavior history of the user while in the first store [page 19 lines 20-24, “displaying, in a navigation interface of a second virtual store registered in said database an image and/or information of at least one product of the second virtual store based on the least one user information captured in step a (information collected while shopping (browsing) in first virtual store) when browsing the said second web store”],
transmitting proposal information based on the behavior history information corresponding to attribute information of the user, as proposal information to be proposed to the user [displaying at least one product of the second store] to which the second store is displayed [page 19 lines 20-24], and
causing the user terminal to display the proposal information, and the second store [page 19 lines 20-24, “displaying, in a navigation interface of a second virtual store an image and/or information of at least one product of the second virtual store”]
wherein the first store [fig. 1 @2] and the second store [fig. 1 @4] are virtual stores selling commercial goods [page 7 lines 27-32, “the term "online store" refers to any type of e-commerce available and accessible by the world wide web (Internet). Additionally, it should be noted that the term "products" should be understood as any objects, real or virtual or services sold/offered/made commercially available through online stores ( Internet)”]
Franken does not teach a user is able to shop controlling an avatar, the user controlling the avatar to move to a second store, acquiring a behavior history of the avatar user while moving in the store, a virtual display of the commercial goods including at least a first product location having a first priority and a second product location having a second priority, lower than the first priority, and wherein the processor is further configured to display commercial goods having a third priority based on the proposal information in the first product location and display commercial goods having a fourth priority, lower than the third priority, based on the proposal information in the second product location
Crow teaches a user is able to shop controlling an avatar [¶0033 and ¶0037, “The virtual store module 250 generates a layout of a retail store within the virtual world. A store in the virtual world includes objects available for purchase by a user of the online system 140. Objects in the store may represent virtual items for use in the virtual world, for use when interacting with the online system 140, or for use in interacting with the third party system 130. Alternatively, objects in the store may correspond to real-world items available for purchase and use by the user. In one embodiment, a virtual store is displayed via a client device 110 using two- or three-dimensional graphics imitating the appearance of a physical store. For example, objects in the store are spatially distributed throughout the store and may be displayed on shelves or displays. A user of the online system 140 moves throughout the virtual store to view objects available in the store. In one embodiment, the user uses input devices of the client device 110 to manipulate the objects. For example, input received by the client device 110 allows a user to pick up objects in the store, rotate object in the store, drive virtual car included in the store, use tools in the store, and try clothing items in the store on an avatar representing the user. The virtual store may also include graphics representing other users of the online system 140 or characters in the virtual world”], and
acquiring a behavior history of the avatar user while moving in the store [¶0033, “As a user interacts with the virtual world, the virtual world generation module 235 communicates information describing the user's interactions with the virtual world to the action log 220. Thus, the action log 220 may maintain a record of locations visited by the user in the virtual world, objects with which the user interacted in the virtual world, purchases made by the user in the virtual world, other users with which the user interacted in the virtual world, activities completed by the user in the virtual world, or any other action performed by the user in the virtual world”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using avatars to represent a user in a virtual environment, as taught by Crow, into the information providing apparatus taught by Franken in order to accurately represent human shopping behavior in a virtual shopping environment
Franken in view of Crow does not teach, the user controlling the avatar to move to a second store, a virtual display of the commercial goods including at least a first product location having a first priority and a second product location having a second priority, lower than the first priority, and wherein the processor is further configured to display commercial goods having a third priority based on the proposal information in the first product location and display commercial goods having a fourth priority, lower than the third priority, based on the proposal information in the second product location
Dawson teaches the user controlling the avatar to move to a second store [¶0034, “… the end-user 34 controlling the avatar 10 … When the avatar 10 enters a virtual shopping area 24, the layout depicted in FIG. 4 may be presented to the avatar 10, with the stores in the virtual shopping area 24 ordered based on at least one of the preferences 20 and data 30 of the end-user 32”, ¶0035, “ … referring again to FIG. 4, when the avatar 10 enters the store "World of Books", this virtual store links to the end user's preferred source for books (e.g., Amazon.com)”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of representing a virtual mall, comprising a plurality of virtual stores, accessible to a user controlled avatar, as taught by Dawson into the information providing apparatus taught by Franken in view of Crow in order to allow a user to explore a plurality of virtual stores, and their characteristic products, and their individual product arrangements using an avatar
Franken in view of Crow and Dawson does not teach a virtual display of the commercial goods including at least a first product location having a first priority and a second product location having a second priority, lower than the first priority, and wherein the processor is further configured to display commercial goods having a third priority based on the proposal information in the first product location and display commercial goods having a fourth priority, lower than the third priority, based on the proposal information in the second product location
Li teaches a virtual display of the commercial goods [¶0004, “A product shelf is a virtual interface for displaying an online product”], including at least a first product location having a first priority [fig. 4 @3] and a second product location having a second priority [fig. 4 @4], lower than the first priority [¶0042, location priority is equivalent to attention ranking], and wherein the processor is further configured to
display [fig. 9 @906] commercial goods having a third priority [fig. 9 @902 teaches determining priority] based on the proposal information in the first product location [fig. 4 @3, fig. 9 @906 teaches displaying products with a higher priority in slots having a higher attention ranking] and
display commercial goods having a fourth priority, lower than the third priority, based on the proposal information in the second product location [¶0007, “The present disclosure further provides an apparatus for displaying an online product on a product shelf, where the product shelf includes at least two display slots, each display slot displays one online product, and the apparatus includes: a product priority obtaining unit, configured to obtain online products waiting to be displayed and priorities of the online products; and a product display unit, configured to display an online product with a higher priority on a display slot with a higher attention ranking position based on attention ranking of the display slots on the product shelf, the attention ranking of the display slots being determined based on a distance between a display slot and a visual center of the product shelf, and the visual center of the product shelf being a golden section point in an upper left corner of a product shelf display area”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining the priority of products to a user then arranging those products in priority order, as taught by Li into the information providing apparatus taught by Franken in view of Crow and Dawson in order to display virtual store products arranged in order of the users priority with higher priority products displayed in locations with a greater determined attention ranking.
Regarding Claim 2 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to execute:
determining the proposal information by using the behavior history information [Claim 1 browsing data] corresponding to the attribute information [user registration information] of the user [Claim 2, “Method according to claim 1, characterized in that the information captured in step a consists of at least one information relating to a login, search, insertion into a virtual shopping cart, offer and / or purchase order from the user at the first webshop (2), at least one user registration information (1), viewing / browsing a product, clicking on recommendation windows and / or clicking on a “smart email” function "].
Regarding Claim 6 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the acquiring the behavior history information further includes
acquiring the attribute information [user registration information] of the user set in the first store [Claim 2 teaches login data obtained when logging into first store]
Regarding Claim 7 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to execute:
displaying the proposal information in the second store [fig. 1 @4] displayed on the user terminal [Claim 1, “b) display, in a navigation interface of a second virtual store (4) registered in said database (3), of an image and / or information of at least one product from the second virtual store (4) based on at least one user information (1) captured in step a, when browsing the said second virtual store (4)”].
Regarding Claim 9 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the transmitting the proposal information includes
transmitting the proposal information relating to generation of the second store for the user, based on the behavior history information corresponding to the attribute information of the user [Claim 18]
Regarding Claim 10 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 9, wherein the processor is further caused to execute:
determining the proposal information relating to the generation of the second store for the user, by using the behavior history information corresponding to the attribute information of the user [Claims 1 and 18].
Regarding Claim 11 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 10, wherein the determining the proposal information includes
determining the proposal information relating to the generation of the second store for the user based on the behavior history information [Claim 1, “b) display, in a navigation interface of a second virtual store (4) registered in said database (3), of an image and / or information of at least one product from the second virtual store (4) based on at least one user information (1) captured in step a, when browsing the said second virtual store (4)”].
Regarding Claim 19 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein
the behavior history information stored in the storage memory comprises product viewing history of the user in the first store and product purchase history of the user [Claim 2, “Method according to claim 1, characterized in that the information captured in step a consists of at least one information relating to a login, search, insertion into a virtual shopping cart, offer and / or purchase order from the user at the first webshop (2), at least one user registration information (1), viewing / browsing a product, clicking on recommendation windows and / or clicking on a “smart email” function "].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li, and Haapoja (US 2021/0326959). All reference is to Franken unless indicated otherwise.
Regarding Claim 3 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 2
Franken in view of Crow does not teach wherein the determining preference of the user based on the behavior history information, and determining the proposal information to be proposed to the user from among commercial goods information associated with the second virtual space, by using the determined preference of the user
Haapoja teaches determining preference of the user based on the behavior history information [¶0094, “The user profile may store user-specific information, such as previous purchase history of the user, and/or preferences of the user, and/or clothing size of the user, and/or previous interactions the user had with merchants on the e-commerce platform (such as text or email exchanges), and/or address information for the user, and/or billing information for the user”], and
determining the proposal information to be proposed to the user from among commercial goods information associated with the second virtual space, by using the determined preference of the user [¶0095, “The e-commerce platform 100 may include a product recommendation engine that generates product recommendations for products for sale in the merchant's physical retail store. A recommendation generated by the product recommendation engine may be based on user-specific information (e.g. information stored in the user's profile in the e-commerce platform 100), and/or based on other information, e.g. based on store inventory information (e.g. stored in memory in the e-commerce platform 100)”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of considering inventory when recommending products to a user, as taught by Haapoja, into the information providing apparatus taught by Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, and Li in order to provide rapid fulfillment of the users selection and not recommend products that are back-ordered or not available.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li, Haapoja and Glazer (US 2018/0137561). All reference is to Franken unless indicated otherwise.
Regarding Claim 4 (Currently Amended), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li and Haapoja teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 3
Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li and Haapoja does not teach determining the proposal information to be proposed to the user from among the commercial goods information associated with the commercial goods sold in the second store
Glazer teaches a first virtual space [fig. 2B @50b] and a second virtual space [fig. 2B @50n] are virtual stores selling commercial goods [¶0022], and
determining of proposal information includes determining the proposal information to be proposed to the user from among the commercial goods information associated with the commercial goods sold in the second virtual space [¶0062 teaches presenting information for similar products, lower priced products sold in other stores, the first virtual store is where user behavior and preferences are developed and the second virtual store corresponds to a store containing similar products]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of shopping in a first virtual retailer, determining based on user behavior in the first retailer whether similar items are available in a second virtual retailer and informing the user of such items, as taught by Glazer, into the information providing apparatus, taught by Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li and Haapoja, in order to present products of interest to a user based on the user behavior in a first location without requiring the user to visit additional retail locations.
Regarding Claim 5 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li, Haapoja and Glazer teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 4, wherein
the determining the proposal information includes determining the preference of the user [Glazer: ¶0064 teaches determining user behavior and products of interest based on clickstream data], based on at least one of
the behavior history information representing a behavior of the user viewing the commercial goods [Glazer: ¶0064, “the ability to automate the dialog based upon the user's behavior through the mall may be achieved through virtual reality clickstream. The collection of semantically meaningful data that identifies the user actions with the virtual worlds is necessary to determine which products may be of interest to the user”] or
the behavior history information representing a behavior of the user purchasing the commercial goods [alternate limitation not addressed].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li and Glazer. All reference is to Franken unless indicated otherwise.
Regarding Claim 12 (Currently Amended), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 11
Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, and Li does not teach determining the proposal information relating to a presentation of the commercial goods displayed in the second store for the user, by using the preference of the user
Glazer teaches determining the proposal information [construed as cross-selling information] to be proposed to the user from among the commercial goods information associated with the commercial goods sold in the second virtual space [¶0062 teaches presenting information for similar products, lower priced products sold in other stores, the first virtual store is where user behavior and preferences are developed and the second virtual store corresponds to a store containing similar products]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of shopping in a first virtual retailer, determining based on user behavior in the first retailer whether similar items are available in a second virtual retailer and informing the user of such items, as taught by Glazer, into the information providing apparatus, taught by Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li, in order to present products of interest to a user based on the user behavior in a first location without requiring the user to visit additional retail locations.
Regarding Claim 13 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li and Glazer teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 12, wherein
the determining includes determining the preference of the user [Glazer: ¶0064 teaches determining user behavior and products of interest based on clickstream data], based on at least one of
the behavior history information representing a behavior of the user viewing the commercial goods [Glazer: ¶0064, “the ability to automate the dialog based upon the user's behavior through the mall may be achieved through virtual reality clickstream. The collection of semantically meaningful data that identifies the user actions with the virtual worlds is necessary to determine which products may be of interest to the user”] or
the behavior history information representing a behavior of the user purchasing the commercial goods [alternate limitation not addressed].
Regarding Claim 14 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li and Glazer teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 12, wherein the processor is further caused to execute:
displaying, on the user terminal, the commercial goods in the second store for the user upon changing the presentation of the commercial goods according to the proposal information [page 3 lines 4-8, “displaying, in a navigation interface of a second virtual store registered in said database, an image and/or information of at least one product of the second virtual store based on at least one user information captured in step a , when browsing said second online store”].
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li, and Mizuguchi (US 2023/0186370). All reference is to Franken unless indicated otherwise.
Regarding Claims 8 and 15 (Previously Presented), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 1 and Claim 9
Franken in view of Crowe, Dawson and Li does not teach the behavior history information of the user in the first store includes the behavior history information of the user in a real space corresponding to the first store
Mizuguchi teaches acquiring behavior history information [fig. 7 purchase information] of a user [fig. 8 @S101] in a real space corresponding to a first store [¶0158, “In the examples of the embodiment and the modification examples, the customer visits an actual store, but the store may be provided in a virtual space. When the store is provided in a virtual space, the objects in the store may be replaced by virtual objects, and the salespeople may be replaced by avatars”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining user behavior in a real store and applying the behavior to assist in determining a recommended product, as taught by Mizuguchi, into the information providing apparatus, taught by Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li, in order to collect user behavior information in a physical store, allowing the user behavior to include physical actions not available from interactions in a virtual store.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, Li, and Shinohara (JP 2024/008462). All reference is to Franken unless indicated otherwise.
Regarding Claim 20 (Previously Provided), Franken in view of Crow, Dawson and Li teaches the information providing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of:
the causing the user terminal to display the first store [fig. 1 @2]; or
the causing the user terminal to display the second store includes displaying second video of a second real store corresponding to the first store in the virtual space [alternate limitation not addressed]
Franken in view of Crow , Dawson and Li does not teach displaying a video of a real store in the virtual space
Shinohara teaches displaying a video of a real store in the virtual space [¶0058-¶0061]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using video of a real space to exhibit the contents of the real store in a virtual space, as taught by Shinohara, into the information providing apparatus, taught by Franken in view of Crow, Dawson, and Li, in order to provide visual details of real world products to shoppers in a virtual environment.
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 Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The Examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622