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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,685 in view of Husemann et al. (US 20090315916 A1, hereinafter Husemann.
The claims of the patented disclose the claimed invention except for the following, which Husemann teaches in a similar environment:
manage an arrangement of a plurality of virtual stores within a virtual environment relative to each of the plurality of virtual stores as groupings along one or more virtual streets according to grouping criteria; (Husemann: see at least ¶29, 32: shops may be grouped according to criteria such as geographical boundaries of a virtual world and semantic categorizations)
generating, by the computing device, and based on the request, the arrangement of the plurality of virtual stores within the virtual environment, in which the plurality of virtual stores are arranged relative to the each of the plurality of virtual stores as the groupings along the one or more virtual streets according to the grouping criteria; (Husemann: see at least ¶29, 32: shops may be grouped according to criteria such as geographical boundaries of a virtual world and semantic categorizations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the teachings of Husemann, since such a modification would have provided improved ease and efficiency of navigation in the virtual world, improved communication and cooperation among users of the virtual world, and improved visibility and accessibility of resources in the virtual world, by representing them in their original form (3-dimensional views instead of textual representations) and in a consistent context (e g. all objects next to one another instead of as links to separate places that must be individually visited). (see at least ¶6-9 of Husemann)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 9-10, 13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husemann et al. (US 20090315916 A1), in view of Milecevic (US 20210142394 A1) and Keeler et al. (US 20150309705 A1, hereinafter Keeler).
Regarding Claim 1
Husemann disclose a method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:
manage an arrangement of a plurality of virtual stores within a virtual environment relative to each of the plurality of virtual stores as groupings along one or more virtual streets according to grouping criteria; (Husemann: see at least ¶29, 32: shops may be grouped according to criteria such as geographical boundaries of a virtual world and semantic categorizations)
receiving, by the computing device, a request via a network from a client device to access the virtual environment; (Husemann: see at least ¶31)
generating, by the computing device, and based on the request, the arrangement of the plurality of virtual stores within the virtual environment, in which the plurality of virtual stores are arranged relative to the each of the plurality of virtual stores as the groupings along the one or more virtual streets according to the grouping criteria; (Husemann: see at least ¶29, 32: shops may be grouped according to criteria such as geographical boundaries of a virtual world and semantic categorizations)
generating, by the computing device, the virtual environment as having the generated arrangement; (Husemann: see at least ¶31-37: virtual world generated and populated with virtual objects, and presented to requesting user)
outputting, by the computing device, the generated virtual environment for communication via the network to the client device. (Husemann: see at least ¶31-37: virtual world generated and populated with virtual objects, and presented to requesting user)
Husemann does not explicitly disclose training, by the computing device, a machine learning model to manage the virtual arrangement, and generating the arrangement by the machine learning model.
However, Milicevic teaches that it is known to include training a machine learning model to manage the virtual arrangement, (Milicevic: abstract, ¶31, 47) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann, with the training a machine learning manage and generate virtual store arrangement within a virtual environment, as taught by Milicevic, since such a modification would have provided a virtual shopping system which may enhance the virtual shopping experience and/or which mitigates some of the disadvantages of the virtual shopping experience. (Milicevic: ¶6)
Additionally, Keeler teaches that it is known to include generating an arrangement of stores by a machine learning model (Keeler: fig. 16A, ¶84-88: virtual arrangement generated by machine learning model (AI system) in response to a user connection with platform) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann, with the generating the arrangement of virtual stores by a machine learning model in response to a request to access a platform, as taught by Keeler, since such a modification would have provided maximized sales and/or profits. (Keeler: abstract)
Regarding Claims 9, 15
Claims 9 and 15 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 16
Husemann further discloses:
wherein the generating further includes generating the arrangement of the virtual stores along virtual streets within the virtual environment. (Husemann: see at least ¶29)
Regarding Claims 13, 19
Husemann does not explicitly disclose, but Milicevic teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the generating of the arrangement further comprises identifying, based on the request, a likelihood of a virtual store being of interest for each of the virtual stores, and grouping the virtual stores based on the likelihoods corresponding to the virtual stores (Milicevic: abstract, ¶31, 47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann, with the generating a virtual store arrangement to increase likelihood of achieving conversion, as taught by Milicevic, since such a modification would have provided a virtual shopping system which may enhance the virtual shopping experience and/or which mitigates some of the disadvantages of the virtual shopping experience. (Milicevic: ¶6)
3. Claims 3, 5-8, 11, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, as applied above, and further in view of Bimbra.
Regarding Claims 3, 11, 17
Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler does not explicitly disclose, but Bimbra teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the virtual streets include indicators within the virtual environment of a respective criteria used to group the virtual stores along the virtual streets (Bimbra: ¶39, fig. 2B: “CLOSED” indicator shows criteria used to group stores: “work” tag that filters virtual environment)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, with the features taught by Bimbra, since such a modification would have provided a method of managing content filters within a three dimensional (3D) immersive environment without compromising the visual and interactive integrity of the environment itself (Bimbra: see at least ¶20).
Regarding Claim 5
Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler does not explicitly disclose, but Bimbra teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the request includes a user identifier (user ID) and further comprises locating user data corresponding to the user ID, wherein the generating of the arrangement of the virtual stores within the virtual environment is based at least in part of the user data corresponding to the user ID (Bimbra: ¶32: users may define tags used to customize virtual environment)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, with the features taught by Bimbra, since such a modification would have provided a method of managing content filters within a three dimensional (3D) immersive environment without compromising the visual and interactive integrity of the environment itself (Bimbra: see at least ¶20).
Regarding Claim 6
Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler does not explicitly disclose, but Bimbra teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the request includes customization data and the generating is based at least in part on the customization data (Bimbra: ¶32: users may define tags used to customize virtual environment)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, with the features taught by Bimbra, since such a modification would have provided a method of managing content filters within a three dimensional (3D) immersive environment without compromising the visual and interactive integrity of the environment itself (Bimbra: see at least ¶20).
Regarding Claim 7
Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler does not explicitly disclose, but Bimbra teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the user data describes past user interaction associated with the user ID with digital content (Bimbra: ¶35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, with the features taught by Bimbra, since such a modification would have provided a method of managing content filters within a three dimensional (3D) immersive environment without compromising the visual and interactive integrity of the environment itself (Bimbra: see at least ¶20).
Regarding claim 8
Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler does not explicitly disclose, but Bimbra teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the virtual stores are depicted as mimicking physical stores (Bimbra: fig. 2A-C)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, with the features taught by Bimbra, since such a modification would have provided a method of managing content filters within a three dimensional (3D) immersive environment without compromising the visual and interactive integrity of the environment itself (Bimbra: see at least ¶20).
Regarding Claims 14, 20
Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler does not explicitly disclose, but Bimbra teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the generating of the arrangement further comprises assigning tags to the virtual stores and grouping the virtual stores based on the tags (Bimbra: ¶35-39)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, with the features taught by Bimbra, since such a modification would have provided a method of managing content filters within a three dimensional (3D) immersive environment without compromising the visual and interactive integrity of the environment itself (Bimbra: see at least ¶20).
4. Claims 4, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, as applied above, and further in view of Bajpai et al. (US 20190019242 A1, hereinafter Bajpai).
Regarding Claim 4
Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler discloses the claimed invention except for:
wherein the generating further includes generating an arrangement of virtual digital content within respective virtual stores of the virtual stores.
Bajpai teaches that it is known to include generating an arrangement of digital content within digital stores based on data associated with a user (¶39) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Husemann in view of Milicevic and Keeler, with the determination of arrangement of digital content, as taught by Bajpai, since such a modification would have facilitated more efficient product selection by a user, by allowing the users to try out various iterations of the products (¶18 of Bajpai).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 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 Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights