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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 9/8/2025 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,685.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate claims 1-20.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bimbra et al. (US 20090115776 A1, hereinafter Bimbra), in view of Milecevic (US 20210142394 A1) and Keeler et al. (US 20150309705 A1, hereinafter Keeler).
Regarding Claim 1
Bimbra discloses a method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:
receiving, by the computing device, a request via a network from a client device to access the platform implementing the virtual environment (Bimbra: at least ¶42: user explores a virtual world)
generating, by the computing device, based on the request, the arrangement of the virtual stores within the virtual environment; (Bimbra: ¶43-44: content to present to active user determined based on retrieved active tag)
generating, by the computing device, the virtual environment as having the generated arrangement; (Bimbra: ¶43-44: determined content generated and displayed in virtual environment to user)
outputting, by the computing device, the generated virtual environment for communication via the network to the client device (Bimbra: ¶43-44: determined content generated and displayed in virtual environment to user)
While Bimbra discloses generating the arrangement of virtual stores along a virtual street (see at least figs. 2A-2C, ¶34-40), Bimbra does not explicitly disclose, but Milicevic teaches in a similar environment:
training, by the computing device, a machine learning model to manage arrangement of a virtual environment implemented by a platform; (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 Bimbra, with the training a machine learning model to determine a virtual store arrangement within a virtual environment implemented by a platform, 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)
While Bimbra discloses generating the arrangement of virtual stores along a virtual street, Bimbra does not explicitly disclose, but Keeler teaches in a similar environment:
responsive to the request, generating the arrangement of stores by the 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)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Bimbra, 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
Bimbra further discloses:
wherein the generating further includes generating the arrangement of the virtual stores along virtual streets within the virtual environment (Bimbra: ¶34-40, fig. 2A-2C: virtual stores on a virtual “Main Street” configuration determined by filtering based on tags associated with a user profile)
Regarding Claims 3, 11, 17
Bimbra further discloses:
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)
Regarding Claim 5
Bimbra further disclsoses:
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)
Regarding Claim 6
Bimbra further discloses:
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)
Regarding Claim 7
Bimbra further discloses:
wherein the user data describes past user interaction associated with the user ID with digital content (Bimbra: ¶35)
Regarding claim 8
Bimbra further discloses:
wherein the virtual stores are depicted as mimicking physical stores (Bimbra: fig. 2A-C)
Regarding Claims 13, 19
Bimbra 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 Bimbra, 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)
Regarding Claims 14, 20
Bimbra further discloses:
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)
3. Claims 4, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bimbra 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
Bimbra 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 Bimbra 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 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts, generally, that “Applicant submits that the asserted references of record do not disclose, teach, or suggest the subject matter of "responsive to the request [to access the platform], generating, by the machine-learning model and based on the request, the arrangement of the virtual stores within the virtual environment," as recited by claim 1.” Specifically, with regard to Keeler, applicant argues:
Keeler and Mile describe layouts that are generated offline and remain fixed until the model is retrained; Keeler and Mile do not link layout generation to each user request. Keeler, Abstract and [0088]; Mile, Abstract and [0006], [0031], and [0047]. Bimbra does respond to user navigation events, but Bimbra's "content filter tool" shows or hides objects according to rule-based criteria and does not invoke a machine-learning model to create a new arrangement. Bimbra, [0034]-[0046].
Accordingly, the combination of references fail to describe (i) use of a machine-learning model to generate an arrangement of virtual stores within the virtual environment and (ii) execution of that generation dynamically in response to a specific client request, as recited by claim 1. Accordingly, the references fail to teach or suggest "responsive to the request [to access the platform], generating, by the machine-learning model and based on the request, the arrangement of the virtual stores within the virtual environment," as recited by claim 1.
However, as noted in the rejection above, figure 16A and at least paragraphs 84-88 of Keeler describe a process flow where the platform receives a user connection (e.g., via a network), and in response, the platform uses user profile information (if available) to create or optimize a layout for the user using a machine learning model. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a user connecting via a network to a platform as equivalent to the user requesting access to the platform. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Keeler teaches the newly-claimed feature.
Applicant further asserts that:
Additionally, Keeler and Mile address optimization of product or shelf positioning inside a single store, and Bimbra governs selective display of pre- existing objects for content suitability. Bimbra, [0034]-[0046]; Mile, Abstract and [0006], [0031], and [0047]; Keeler, Abstract and [0088]. None of the references teach or suggest collecting the street-level features, such as storefront adjacency, pedestrian flow, or traffic density, that would be necessary for a machine-learning model to "manage arrangement of virtual stores along virtual streets."
Implementing the claimed functionality would therefore require a person of ordinary skill in the art to devise new data inputs, define new training labels, and establish new objective functions beyond anything described in the cited art. To summarize, the gap between micro-level merchandising and macro-level street planning is not a routine design choice but an additional inventive step. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would lack both the teachings and the motivation to arrive at the recited method of claim 1.
In response, the Examiner notes that none of the “street level features” argued by applicant are recited in the claims. Accordingly, such features do not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not need to “devise new data inputs, define new training labels, and establish new objective functions beyond anything described in the cited art” in order to arrive at the claimed invention, given the cited references. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the teachings of arranging virtual stores along virtual streets as well known in Bimbra. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Husemann et al. (US 20090315916 A1) discloses on-the-fly creation of virtual places in virtual worlds, including adding or removing virtual shops on custom-generated virtual streets.
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 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