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 .
Priority
The current application is a national stage entry under 35 USC 371 of PCT/US2022/031599, filed 5/31/2022, and claims priority to Us Provisional Application No. 63/195272, filed 6/1/2021.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (i), claims 7-11 in the reply filed on 9/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 12 stands withdraw.
In addition, Applicant has withdrawn claims that were not subject to restriction, including claims 14-20. The status of the claims is provided below.
Claims Status
Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 remain pending.
Claims 12 and 14-20 have been withdrawn without traverse.
Claims 1-11 are examined on the merits and stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 4-5 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the scene comprises an augmented reality (AR) scene, a virtual reality (VR) scene, or an x reality (XR) scene.
The is insufficient antecedent basis for the term the scene in claim 4. This is because claim 4 depends from claim 1, but “a scene” is not recited in claim 1. The first recitation of “a scene” occurs in claim 3.
For examination purposes, claim 4 will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 3.
Claim 5 inherits these deficiencies of claim 4, from which it depends. Claim 5 is rejected herein with claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites wherein the identifier comprises a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID). Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites multiple identifiers including a first unique identifier, a second unique identifier, and a third unique identifier. It is unclear to which of the identifiers “the identifier” in claim 6 refers, whether claim 6 requires any one of the identifiers to be a UUID, or whether all of the identifiers are intended to comprise a UUID.
For examination purposes claim 6 will be interpreted as “The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first unique identifier, the second unique identifier, or the third unique identifier comprises a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID).”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-11, under Step 2A claims 1-11 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites
a method for developing a virtual store for one or more items to be listed for sale on the virtual store, comprising:
selecting, by a seller of an item, a visible representation that includes the item;
automatically assigning a first unique identifier to the selected visible representation;
automatically saving the selected visible representation in association with the first assigned unique identifier;
selecting from the visible representation one or more items to be listed for sale;
automatically assigning a second unique identifier to the one or more items to be listed for sale;
associating, by the seller, at least pricing with the one or more items to be listed for sale;
identifying, by the seller, one or more payment options;
automatically assigning a third unique identifier for the one or more payment options;
automatically saving as an associated group at least the visible representation, the pricing, the payment options, and the first, second and third unique identifiers.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because for developing a virtual store for one or more items to be listed for sale on the virtual store. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. This also describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce that represent fundamental economic practices, which also fall under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including:
a virtual store,
a software application running on a computing device,
a server,
wherein saving as an associated group, to the server, is initiated by the seller tapping an icon on a display of the computing device;
automatically developing a uniform resource locator (URL) for the virtual store,
wherein the virtual store is displayed upon selection of the URL.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). This is especially worth emphasizing in relation to developing a URL, for which the claims provide no restriction on the manner in which this is to be performed.
Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, reciting a virtual store, or linking the abstract idea to a server or network, does nothing more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to the Internet or computing networks.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Moreover, there is no evidence in the specification that the inventive subject matter provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field
Lastly, saving data (such as the selected items or group), as well as wherein the virtual store is displayed upon selection of the URL represents little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering and output, presentation of offers, storing data) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
storing or retrieving information from memory,
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, dependent claims 2-11 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-11 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-11 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Where further additional elements they are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
For example, further additional elements such as (arguably) tapping an image, video or scene or use of a controller, hang or finger detection process (e.g., claims 3-5), tracing on a screen of a computing device (e.g., claim 8-10) are recited only at a high-level of generality and merely implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware. Furthermore, these additional elements also fail to go beyond a generally link of the use of a judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-11 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-11 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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) 1-2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racco (US 2011/0161182) in view of Dalzell (US 2003/0204447).
Regarding claim 1, Racco teaches a method for developing a virtual store for one or more items to be listed for sale on the virtual store, comprising:
selecting, by a seller of an item, a visible representation that includes the item (see: Fig. 13 (182, 184), 0146, Fig. 22 (184, 131a-b), 0177, Fig. 50 (304, 372), 0250, Fig. 54 (182c), 0271);
automatically, by a software application running on a computing device, assigning a first unique identifier to the selected visible representation (see: Fig. 22 (137, 137s-b), 0177);
automatically, by the software application running on the computing device, saving, to a server, the selected visible representation in association with the first assigned unique identifier (see: 0146, 0177, 0250, Fig. 22 (133, 137));
selecting from the visible representation one or more items to be listed for sale (see: Fig. 15 (194), 0118, Fig. 54 (448, 442), 0271; 0146 (browse through the different photos), Fig. 22 (What are you selling?));
automatically, by the software application running on the computing device, assigning a second unique identifier to the one or more items to be listed for sale (see: Fig. 15 (62-66), 0113);
associating, by the seller, at least pricing with the one or more items to be listed for sale (see: Fig. 13 (198), 0153, Fig. 17 (Price), Fig. 50 (Price for Vehicle));
identifying, by the seller, one or more payment options (see: Fig. 11A (153, 154), Fig. 13 (202), Fig. 15 (accepted payment methods), 0136, Fig. 54 (202c));
automatically, by the software application running on the computing device, assigning a third unique identifier for the one or more payment options (see: 0193, Fig. 13 (202), 0271, Fig. 31 (202a));
automatically, by the software application running on the computing device, saving as an associated group, to the server, at least the visible representation, the pricing, the payment options, and the first, second and third unique identifiers, wherein the associated group represents a virtual store, wherein saving as an associated group, to the server, is initiated by the seller tapping an icon on a display of the computing device (see: 0134, 0143 (save listing button 172), Fig. 14 (172), 0194, 0278 (post items), Fig. 24 (172a, 186a), Fig. 56 (487, 485)).
Though disclosing the above, Racco does not disclose:
automatically, by the software application running on the computing device, developing a uniform resource locator (URL) for the virtual store; and
wherein the virtual store is displayed upon selection of the URL.
Racco, however, is set within a web-based environment for virtual storefronts (e.g., 0125), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the created listings would have been associated with respective URLs.
To this accord, Dalzell discloses a method for generating a virtual storefront by generating items listings including… automatically, by the software application running on the computing device, developing a uniform resource locator (URL) for the virtual store, and, wherein the virtual store is displayed upon selection of the URL (see: Fig. 4A (405), 0103, 0108, Fig. 4C (460); see also: Fig. 3B (which depicts a detail page linked through hypertext link, e.g.405, 460).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Racco to have utilized the known technique for generating listings including creating a URL for a virtual store as taught by Dalzell in order to have allowed sellers to have created listings more rapidly and efficiently while also assisting buyers in efficiently locating marketplace listings (see: Dalzell: 0012-0013).
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising selecting, by the seller and before the selection of the visible representation, an option to create a new store (see: Racco: Fig. 12 (161-163, 166), 0139; see alternatively: Dalzell: Fig. 1A (127), 0085).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting from the visible representation one or more items to be listed for sale is accomplished by the seller (see: Fig. 15 (194), 0118, Fig. 54 (448, 442), 0271).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racco in view of Dalzell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Dell (US 2014/0019281).
Regarding claim 3, Racco in view of Dalzell teaches all of the above as noted including the selection of a representation (e.g., Racco) by the seller, but does not teach the specific manner by which the selection is made. That is, the combination does not teach wherein selecting, by the seller, a visible representation that includes the item, comprises tapping an image, a video, or a scene, on the computing device. Such types of input gestures were notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention and would have been obvious.
For example, O’Dell teaches a method for selecting a visual representation (e.g., an image) including tapping an image, a video, or a scene, on the computing device (see: 0008 (tap on product images), 0080 (taps product images), 0107, 0111, 0114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Racco in view of Dalzell to have utilized the well-known type of input gesture including tapping an image or video as taught by O’Dell
since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (e.g., selecting representations (Racco), tap-based selection (O’Dell), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable – namely, receiving the selections of Racco via tap (as in O’Dell).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 (which has been interpreted as dependent from claim 3 due to antecedent basis) recites wherein the scene comprises an augmented reality (AR) scene, a virtual reality (VR) scene, or an x reality (XR) scene. Claim 3 recites, in the alternative, wherein selecting, by the seller, a visible representation that includes the item, comprises tapping an image, a video, or a scene, on the computing device. Accordingly, “a scene” is not required by claim 3, and claim 4 only refines a contingent portion of claim 3. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein selecting, by the seller, a visible representation that includes the item, comprises using a controller, or a hand or finger detection process (see: O’Dell: 0048 (touch-sensitive screen), 0058 (touch gestures), 0075 (touch-based gestures)).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racco in view of Dalzell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US 2009/0100076).
Regarding claim 6, Racco in view of Dalzell teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein the identifier comprises a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID). The use of UUID was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
For example, Hamilton teaches wherein the identifier comprises a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) (see: 0017, 0026, 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Racco in view of Dalzell to have utilized the well-known type of identifier (e.g., UUID) as taught by Hamilton in order to have provided identifiers that were globally unique and were less likely to be duplicated, which were well-known advantages to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, utilizing the well-known type of identifier (UUID) is merely a combination of old elements (e.g., identifiers, UUID) and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable – namely, storing UUID relative to products and their listings.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racco in view of Dalzell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kannan (US 2011/0082735).
Regarding claim 8, Racco in view of Dalzell teaches all of the above as noted including but does not teach the specific manner of how selections are made. That is, the combination does not teach wherein selecting from the visible representation one or more items to be listed for sale is accomplished by the seller tracing on a screen of the computing device. Such types of input gestures were notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention and would have been obvious.
For example, Kannan teaches a method for item selection where selections are accomplished by the seller tracing on a screen of the computing device (see: 0037 (finger tracing), 0042 (tracing a circle around an object of interest), 0055 (circling the product on the touchscreen), Fig. 6 (606)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Racco in view of Dalzell to have utilized the well-known type of input gesture a tracing gesture as taught by Kannan in order to have enabled users to easily initiate item selection simply by touching the display with a fingertip and circling the product of interest on the screen (see: Kannan: 0037).
9. The method of claim 8, wherein selecting from the visible representation one or more items to be listed for sale is accomplished by the seller tracing a closed shape on the computing device screen (see: Kannan: 0037 (finger tracing), 0042 (tracing a circle around an object of interest), 0055 (circling the product on the touchscreen), Fig. 6 (606)).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites: The method of claim 9, wherein the seller can select multiple separate items that are in the visible representation by tracing closed shapes around each of the multiple separate items. The phrasing “can” indicates that this limitation is only optionally performed. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (see again: MPEP 2111.04).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that Racco discloses selection of multiple items (see: 0139, 0270, Fig. 54 (442)).
11. The method of claim 10, wherein associating, by the seller, pricing with the selected items comprises separately assigning prices to each of the multiple separate items (see: Racco: 0139, 0240, 0270, 0277, 0285, Fig. 54 (442); see also: Fig. 13 (198), 0153, Fig. 17 (Price), Fig. 50 (Price for Vehicle)).
Note: Racco discloses bins of multiple products, which have associated pricing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hale (US 20140258016) discloses a system and method for enabling a user to sell items from their personal inventory including selecting a button from within a visual representation associated with an item to trigger generation of a listing for sale of the inventory item (see: Fig. 6 (680), 0073-0074, Fig. 7 (740), 0100, Fig. 15 (1530), 0106).
Oh (US 2021/0082037) discloses a method including selecting a visual representation by capturing an augmented reality view of a scene including an item, identifying an item in the scene, and generating a listing for the item including associating pricing with the listed item (see: 0030-0032, 0056-0057, Fig. 2a (210), Fig. 3).
(US 20180130119) discloses creation of content by a publisher including selection of a section of an image or video, identification of products within the section, saving tags, and creating webpages containing the created content such that selection of the tag enables purchasing of the product by the consumer (see: Fig. 1, 0031, Fig. 4, 0036, Fig. 7).
Godsey (US 2014/0180880) discloses a product listing having specified payment options (see: Fig. 3A (350)).
(US 20100287061) discloses an item listing creation page that enables a seller to input an offer price, a title for the item listing, a website URL, one or more images illustrating the item, free text to form part of the item listing, and a selection of supported payment service (see: Fig. 9-10, Fig. 4, 0044).
Scholar (US 20100185547) discloses creation of a vision album for project planning that enables users to view photos, images, and other samples of products, and select image and product files (see: 0080, 0085, Fig. 4-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619