Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 6/16/2026. Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 1 stands cancelled. Claim 2 has been amended. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn in light of the amendments, and claims 13-21 have been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority to application 17245975 is acknowledged. The claims are therefore afforded an effective filing date of 4/30/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to for the following informality: “a virtual transaction terminal” should read “the virtual transaction terminal.”
Claims 6 is objected to for the following informality: “from at least one catalog service” should read “from the at least one catalog service.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 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 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 2-12 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 2-12 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 2 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
obtaining an item identifier for an item from at least one catalog service;
mapping the item identifier to at least one item image of the item;
obtaining a model of a store;
using the model to render the at least one item image within a generated store;
activating, via a session manager, a session with the customer, wherein the session manager tracks a location of the customer within the store, navigates the customer through the store, and assists the customer during the session as the user interacts with the store and selects items for inclusion in a cart; and
processing, via the session manager, a payment for items in the cart at a transaction terminal within the store during the session.
The above limitations recite the concept of a personalized shopping experience. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 2-12 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Operations being performed dynamically
Virtual reality (VR)
An interface
Elements being virtual
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 3, 6-7, 12 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 4-5, 8-11 these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of further elements being virtual, further VR elements, an avatar. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
Operations being performed dynamically
Virtual reality (VR)
An interface
Elements being virtual
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 13-17 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 13-17 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 13 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
rendering a store and store items within a shopping session;
maintaining a cart associated with a customer in the shopping session;
providing information for each store item to the customer during the shopping session; and
processing a payment of the customer for a selected store item added to the cart during the shopping session.
The above limitations recite the concept of a personalized shopping experience. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 13-17 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Virtual reality (VR)
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 14, 17 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 15-16, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of a VR interface, an avatar. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
Virtual reality (VR)
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 18-21 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 18-21 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 18 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
providing a store display associated with a store;
tracking a first customer navigating through the store;
enabling selection of an item for a first cart associated with the first customer;
providing assistance to the first customer through a conversation;
enabling interaction between the first customer and a second customer within a room of the store; and
processing payment on behalf of the first customer during a checkout transaction associated with the first cart.
The above limitations recite the concept of a personalized shopping experience. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 18-21 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Virtual reality (VR)
A VR interface
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 19 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 20-21 these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of an avatar and further VR elements. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
Virtual reality (VR)
A VR interface
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 7-9, & 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Wiedmeyer et al (US 20190251622 A1), hereinafter Wiedmeyer.
Regarding Claim 2, Wiedmeyer discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining an item identifier for an item from at least one catalog service (Wiedmeyer: “within the database an asset describing a product may have a unique identifier that identifies a specific instance of the asset, and/or may have a unit identifier, such as a stock keeping unit (SKU) code, associated with the product represented by the asset. ” [0071] – “ the device may collect any data needed to determine and describe the products to be displayed in the customized store. The data may be collected from one or more suitable sources, and may include … data that relevant to the products and is obtained from merchants, product marketing services, promotional data stores, and other third-party data sources.” [0101]);
mapping the item identifier to at least one item image of the item (Wiedmeyer: “The database may include 1 to 10, or possibly more, 2D images of the asset representing views of the produce identified by the unit identifier” [0071] – “identify, in the asset data associated with a first selected product of the one or more selected products, packaging data for the first selected product, the packaging data including a package type, a set of dimensions, and one or more images representing each viewable side of the corresponding 3D computer graphic model of the first selected product. ” [0018]);
obtaining a model of a store (Wiedmeyer: “receive, from one or more of the plurality of electronic data stores, asset data associated with a plurality of products and a plurality of layout objects configured to display one or more of the plurality of products, a store plan for the retail store, the store plan comprising at least a store map and a layout, with respect to the store map, of the plurality of layout objects. ” [0016]);
using the model to dynamically render the at least one item image within a virtual reality (VR) store (Wiedmeyer: user may wear a VR headset that immerses the user within the rendered VR store environment. …“interact with items from the content library, such as specific merchandise or marketing materials, and place them on shelves 302 or within the virtual store to create a retail store environment. ” [0073] – “create and visually render the asset within the virtual environment. The system creates and visually renders assets within the virtual simulation by combining stored data elements comprising several pieces of information provided by a user of the system or otherwise stored in the content library or database. ” [0071]);
activating, via a VR session manager, a VR session with a customer through a VR interface provided to a customer-operated device (Wiedmeyer: “When utilized by possible customers, the VR platform…a VR simulation of a customized retail store that contains the identified products.” [0049] – “The users log in to the VR platform (step 1252) and, at step 1254, users agree to enter a customized store simulation together. At step 1256, the device renders the associated customized store simulation to the VR devices of each user” [0109] – This simulation, instantiated specifically for the user, is understood to be a session.),
wherein the VR session manager:
tracks a location of the customer within the VR store (Wiedmeyer: “The simulation generator may also track usage data with respect to users, assets, and/or locations (e.g., time spent in a room) within the simulation … user movements or interactions that can generate corresponding usage data include: amount of time spent in a location, such as a room; amount of time spent with the field of view focused on a particular asset or on a particular heading … travel paths of avatars through the store” [0100]),
navigates the customer through the VR store (Wiedmeyer: “During the simulation assembly, users may select another location within the virtual environment and be automatically transported there without moving through physical space.” [0099] – “the presenter may be able to move within the virtual environment, such as by walking toward the simulated shelf objects displayed in the VR device.” [0087]), and
assists the customer during the VR session as the customer interacts with the VR store through the VR interface and selects items for inclusion in a cart (Wiedmeyer: “the assembled environment is a virtual three-dimensional grocery store at the human-scale, with aisles of shelves loaded with merchandise, descriptive signage, pricing information,” [0074] – “a teleportation display that allows the user to navigate wide areas of virtual space while constrained to a smaller physical space. … A preview of where they will be transported within the VR environment may be shown in the display to minimize the jarring effects of moving long distance” [0099] – “The user can pick up an item (i.e., an asset object) and either return it to the shelf or put it in the user's shopping basket” [0108]); and
processing, via the VR session manager, a payment for items in the cart at a virtual transaction terminal within the VR store during the VR session (Wiedmeyer: “The user can pick up an item … put it in the user's shopping basket (step 1210). When finished shopping, the user may execute a checkout process (step 1212), such as by going to a cash register in the simulated store..” [0108] – “a transaction processor to enable the user to make purchases of products within the user's customized store.” [0049]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 2 further comprising, processing a payment for the item during a checkout transaction at a virtual transaction terminal within the VR store during the VR session (Wiedmeyer: “The user can pick up an item … put it in the user's shopping basket (step 1210). When finished shopping, the user may execute a checkout process (step 1212), such as by going to a cash register in the simulated store..” [0108] – “a transaction processor to enable the user to make purchases of products within the user's customized store.” [0049]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising updating at least one of a state of the VR session, a location within the VR store, of a view within the VR store based on at least one action of the customer through the VR interface (Wiedmeyer: “the presenter may be able to move within the virtual environment, such as by walking toward the simulated shelf objects displayed in the VR device. In one embodiment, the presenter may be able to use a controller to pick merchandise on the shelf, …the VR platform also simulates the retail experience for customers in a similar manner. Using a headset or other acceptable device for displaying the VR environment, the customer would be presented with, for example in FIG. 5, the exemplary visual representation 500 of a retail environment generated by the present system.” [0087-0090] – See also [0094-0095]).
Regarding Claim 8, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the customer is a first customer and the VR session is a first VR session, and wherein updating further includes rendering a VR room based on a selection of the first customer through the VR interface and exposing within the VR room an avatar of a customer shopping in a second VR session (Wiedmeyer: “determine that the first user is accessing the system via the first VR display device and the second user is accessing the system via the second VR display device; and before sending the simulation data to the first VR display device and the second VR display device generate a first avatar object visually representing the first user, generate a second avatar object visually representing the second user; and insert the first avatar object and the second avatar object into the simulation data to enable the first user and the second user to see each other in the synchronized simulation.” [0025] – “The viewers and presenter may see and interact with the avatars of the others during the review simulation.” [0086] - See also [0109]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 8, wherein rendering further includes facilitating communications between the first customer and a second customer within the VR room (Wiedmeyer: “enable multiple users to see, hear, and interact with each other via their respective avatars within the simulation.” [0008] – “ the device renders the associated customized store simulation to the VR devices of each user as described above, and the users view the simulation each from their own vantage point (step 1258) and interact with the products and the other users represented in the simulation” [0109] – “Concurrent users of a simulation may also be able to hear each other using audio input and output interfaces of their respective VR devices; speech communications may be facilitated by the VR platform.” [0093]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wiedmeyer discloses a method, comprising:
rendering a virtual reality (VR) store and VR store items within a VR shopping session (Wiedmeyer: user may wear a VR headset that immerses the user within the rendered VR store environment. …“interact with items from the content library, such as specific merchandise or marketing materials, and place them on shelves 302 or within the virtual store to create a retail store environment. ” [0073] – “create and visually render the asset within the virtual environment. The system creates and visually renders assets within the virtual simulation by combining stored data elements comprising several pieces of information provided by a user of the system or otherwise stored in the content library or database. ” [0071] - “When utilized by possible customers, the VR platform…a VR simulation of a customized retail store that contains the identified products.” [0049] – “The users log in to the VR platform (step 1252) and, at step 1254, users agree to enter a customized store simulation together. At step 1256, the device renders the associated customized store simulation to the VR devices of each user” [0109] – This simulation, instantiated specifically for the user, is understood to be a session.);
maintaining a cart associated with a customer in the VR shopping session (Wiedmeyer: “The user can pick up an item (i.e., an asset object) and either return it to the shelf or put it in the user's shopping basket (step 1210). When finished shopping, the user may execute a checkout process (step 1212), such as by going to a cash register in the simulated store.” [0108]);
providing information for each VR store item to the customer during the VR shopping session (Wiedmeyer: “the assembled environment is a virtual three-dimensional grocery store at the human-scale, with aisles of shelves loaded with merchandise, descriptive signage, pricing information,” [0074]); and
processing a payment of the customer for a selected VR store item added to the cart during the VR shopping session (Wiedmeyer: “The user can pick up an item … put it in the user's shopping basket (step 1210). When finished shopping, the user may execute a checkout process (step 1212), such as by going to a cash register in the simulated store..” [0108] – “a transaction processor to enable the user to make purchases of products within the user's customized store.” [0049]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 13, wherein providing the information further includes providing one or more options during the VR shopping session to enable the customer to view item pricing, item ingredients, item nutritional information, item promotion information, or item information for the VR store items (Wiedmeyer: “the assembled environment is a virtual three-dimensional grocery store at the human-scale, with aisles of shelves loaded with merchandise, descriptive signage, pricing information,” [0074] – “a user may be able to use its hand avatar(s) 402 to pick up and inspect (e.g., rotate, and draw closely to the viewport to increase resolution) any product 404 on a shelf 406 in the simulated store” [0094]).
Regarding Claim 15, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 13, wherein providing further includes activating assistance to the customer during the VR shopping session based on a spoken input received from the customer through a VR interface (Wiedmeyer: “Concurrent users of a simulation may also be able to hear each other using audio input and output interfaces of their respective VR devices; speech communications may be facilitated by the VR platform.” [0093] – “The user may provide inputs, such as … voice commands, and the like, to “move” throughout the simulated environment. The system may process the user inputs into corresponding positional changes of the user's avatar, and may update the presented simulation accordingly by translating the simulated environment in any of three spatial dimensions, rotating the simulated environment, and/or scaling the image projected to the user.” [0095] – See also [0073]).
Regarding Claim 16, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising rendering an avatar within the VR store during the VR shopping session (Wiedmeyer: “The viewers and presenter may see and interact with the avatars of the others during the review simulation.” [0086] - “enable multiple users to see, hear, and interact with each other via their respective avatars within the simulation.” [0008]).
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.
Claim Rejection – 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 non-
obviousness.
Claims 4-6, 10-11, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer, in view of Siddique et al (US 20160210602 A1), hereinafter Siddique.
Regarding claim 4, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 2,further comprising rendering, within the VR store, a virtual shelf adjacent to a virtual transaction terminal, wherein the virtual shelf is populated with virtual items (Wiedmeyer: “illustrated in FIG. 6, when an entire store is simulated, the visual representation 600 may be rendered … the user may view the layout of the interior of the store (i.e., aisles, shelves, cashier stations, room interiors, etc.)” [0075] – “The user can pick up an item (i.e., an asset object) and either return it to the shelf or put it in the user's shopping basket (step 1210). When finished shopping, the user may execute a checkout process (step 1212), such as by going to a cash register in the simulated store.” [0108] – See Figure 6 – “store user data identifying the first user and describing one or more shopping preferences of the first user; … determine, from the plurality of products, a plurality of preferred products associated with the one or more shopping preferences of the first user and produce the second arrangement such that the plurality of asset objects in the VR simulation generated based on the second arrangement includes representations of, from the plurality of products, only the plurality of preferred products.” [0014]),
But does not specifically teach that the items are to induce impulse buying by the customer.
However, Siddique teaches a virtual reality simulation of a store (Siddique: [126]), including virtual items to induce impulse buying by the customer (Siddique: “system 10 makes recommendations to the user on stores, brands, apparel as well as provides fit information” [0144] – “recommendations are made to the user based on information collected on the variables in the user's profile (example: preferences, style, interests) as well as based on the user's purchasing and browsing history.” [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wiedmeyer would continue to teach rendering, within the VR store, a virtual shelf adjacent to a virtual transaction terminal, wherein the virtual shelf is populated with virtual items, except that now it would also teach that virtual items to induce impulse buying by the customer, according to the teachings of Siddique. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved immersive experience for users (Siddique: [0120]).
Regarding claim 5, Wiedmeyer/Siddique teach the method of claim 4, wherein the item is a first item (Wiedmeyer: “identify, in the asset data associated with a first selected product of the one or more selected products, packaging data for the first selected product, the packaging data including a package type, a set of dimensions, and one or more images representing each viewable side of the corresponding 3D computer graphic model of the first selected product. ” [0018]).
While Wiedmeyer does not specifically teach that at least one virtual item corresponds to a second item identified from a transaction history of the customer, Siddique teaches that at least one virtual item corresponds to a second item identified from a transaction history of the customer (Siddique: “system 10 makes recommendations to the user on stores, brands, apparel as well as provides fit information” [0144] – “recommendations are made to the user based on information collected on the variables in the user's profile (example: preferences, style, interests) as well as based on the user's purchasing and browsing history.” [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Siddique with Wiedmeyer for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, Wiedmeyer teaches the method of claim 2, wherein selecting the item from at least one catalog service based on inventory associated with a store (Wiedmeyer: “ the device may collect any data needed to determine and describe the products to be displayed in the customized store. The data may be collected from one or more suitable sources, and may include … data that relevant to the products and is obtained from merchants, product marketing services, promotional data stores, and other third-party data sources.” [0101]), but does not specifically teach selecting the item from at least one catalog service based on at least one of: recently purchased items from a transaction history of the customer, item filters selected or associated with the customer, or inventory associated with a physical store.
However, Siddique teaches a virtual reality simulation of a store (Siddique: [126]), including selecting the item from at least one catalog service based on at least one of: recently purchased items from a transaction history of the customer, item filters selected or associated with the customer, or inventory associated with a physical store (Siddique: “system 10 makes recommendations to the user on stores, brands, apparel as well as provides fit information” [0144] – “recommendations are made to the user based on information collected on the variables in the user's profile (example: preferences, style, interests) as well as based on the user's purchasing and browsing history.” [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wiedmeyer would continue to teach selecting the item from at least one catalog service, except that now it would also teach selecting the item from at least one catalog service based on at least one of: recently purchased items from a transaction history of the customer, item filters selected or associated with the customer, or inventory associated with a physical store, according to the teachings of Siddique. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved immersive experience for users (Siddique: [0120]).
Regarding Claim 10, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 9, but does not teach that facilitating further includes exposing first cart contents of a first cart of a first customer to the second customer and exposing second cart contents of a second cart for the second customer to the first customer within the VR room.
However, Siddique teaches a virtual reality simulation of a store (Siddique: [126]), including that facilitating further includes exposing first cart contents of a first cart of a first customer to the second customer and exposing second cart contents of a second cart for the second customer to the first customer within the VR room (Siddique: “users can view the contents of each other's shopping carts” [0207]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wiedmeyer would continue to teach facilitating communications between the first customer and a second customer, except it would additionally teach that facilitating further includes exposing first cart contents of a first cart of a first customer to the second customer and exposing second cart contents of a second cart for the second customer to the first customer within the VR room, according to the teachings of Siddique. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved immersive experience for users (Siddique: [0120]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 10, wherein exposing further includes adding a first item associated with the second cart contents to the first cart based on a second selection by the customer within the VR interface (Siddique: “users can view the contents of each other's shopping carts …They can mark items with user tags that can be shared between members of the shopping trip.” [0207] – “Users can also pick and choose which items from each of the members shopping carts they would like to pay for. An exemplary embodiment of such a method is illustrated in FIG. 21E. As shown in this figure, a user has chosen to pay for his “Red Jersey”, Alisha's sweater, and Robin's socks and tuque. The user's total is also shown. Items that are paid for are shipped to the respective users (shopping cart owners) or can be shipped to a common address (common to all users). … Users can drag and drop items from a shared shopping cart into a list under their name. The list indicates the items that the user would like to pay for” [0221]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Siddique with Wiedmeyer for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 10.
.
Regarding Claim 17, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 13, but does not specifically teach rendering a text box within the VR store to enable receiving text input from the customer during the VR shopping session.
However, Siddique teaches a virtual reality simulation of a store (Siddique: [126]), including rendering a text box within the VR store to enable receiving text input from the customer during the VR shopping session (Siddique: “Users on a shopping trip will be able to communicate with each other via …chat (which may include text and/or speech communication …FIG. 20 shows a chat window 390 in another exemplary embodiment, within the shopping trip scenario.” [0208] – See also Figure 46I and [0241] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wiedmeyer would continue to teach providing information for each VR store item to the customer during the VR shopping session, except it would additionally teach rendering a text box within the VR store to enable receiving text input from the customer during the VR shopping session, according to the teachings of Siddique. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved immersive experience for users (Siddique: [0120]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer in view of Gorman (US 20200324974 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 2, but does not specifically teach suggesting a substitute item when the customer selects the item for inclusion in a cart and the item is identified as being out of stock.
However, Gorman teaches methods for presenting a virtual reality store to a customer (Gorman: [0201]), including suggesting a substitute item when the customer selects the item for inclusion in a cart and the item is identified as being out of stock (Gorman: “The graphical user interface may display the items 114 on shelves … in virtual reality, so that customers can “walk” the aisles and “touch” virtual items to add them to the virtual cart, similarly to how they would in a real store.” [0201] - “ provide for substitutions when an item 114 goes out of stock. … detect when an ordered item 114 is out of stock, and alert the customer, ordering the item 114, via a mobile app or other graphical user interface … automatically suggest one or more substitute items 114 that are known to be in stock based on the managed real-time inventory.”[0202]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wiedmeyer would continue to teach establishing a VR session to enable a customer to interact with the VR store through the VR interface, except that now it would also teach suggesting a substitute item when the customer selects the item for inclusion in a cart and the item is identified as being out of stock, according to the teachings of Gorman. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved convenience for customers (Gorman: [0006]).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer, in view of Glazer et al (US 20180137561 A1), hereinafter Glazer.
Regarding Claim 18, Wiedmeyer discloses a method, comprising:
providing a virtual reality (VR) store interface associated with a VR store (Wiedmeyer: “The VR platform may be used to visualize and simulate environments that can be presented and displayed in three-dimensions to a user on an immersive VR device … FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary visual representation 300 from the user's first-person perspective when the simulation is limited to a planogrammed space; in the illustrated example, only the shelves 302 in the region to be planogrammed are visible.” [0069] – “Using a headset or other acceptable device for displaying the VR environment, the customer would be presented with, for example in FIG. 5, the exemplary visual representation 500 of a retail environment” [0090]);
tracking, via the VR interface, a first customer navigating through the VR store (Wiedmeyer: “The simulation generator may also track usage data with respect to users, assets, and/or locations (e.g., time spent in a room) within the simulation … user movements or interactions that can generate corresponding usage data include: amount of time spent in a location, such as a room; amount of time spent with the field of view focused on a particular asset or on a particular heading … travel paths of avatars through the store” [0100] - “During the simulation assembly, users may select another location within the virtual environment and be automatically transported there without moving through physical space.” [0099] – “the presenter may be able to move within the virtual environment, such as by walking toward the simulated shelf objects displayed in the VR device.” [0087]);
enabling, via the VR interface, selection of a VR item for a first cart associated with the first customer (Wiedmeyer: “The user can pick up an item (i.e., an asset object) and either return it to the shelf or put it in the user's shopping basket” [0108]);
providing, via the VR interface, assistance to the first customer (Wiedmeyer: “the assembled environment is a virtual three-dimensional grocery store at the human-scale, with aisles of shelves loaded with merchandise, descriptive signage, pricing information,” [0074] – “a teleportation display that allows the user to navigate wide areas of virtual space while constrained to a smaller physical space. … A preview of where they will be transported within the VR environment may be shown in the display to minimize the jarring effects of moving long distance” [0099] – “The user can pick up an item (i.e., an asset object) and either return it to the shelf or put it in the user's shopping basket” [0108]);
enabling, via the VR interface, interaction between the first customer and a second customer within a VR room of the VR store (Wiedmeyer: “enable multiple users to see, hear, and interact with each other via their respective avatars within the simulation.” [0008] – “ the device renders the associated customized store simulation to the VR devices of each user as described above, and the users view the simulation each from their own vantage point (step 1258) and interact with the products and the other users represented in the simulation” [0109] – “Concurrent users of a simulation may also be able to hear each other using audio input and output interfaces of their respective VR devices; speech communications may be facilitated by the VR platform.” [0093]); and
processing, via the VR interface, payment on behalf of the first customer during a checkout transaction associated with the first cart (Wiedmeyer: “The user can pick up an item … put it in the user's shopping basket (step 1210). When finished shopping, the user may execute a checkout process (step 1212), such as by going to a cash register in the simulated store..” [0108] – “a transaction processor to enable the user to make purchases of products within the user's customized store.” [0049]),
but do not specifically teach that the assistance is provided through a chatbot.
However, Glazer teaches online shopping in a virtual reality setting [Abstract], including that the assistance is provided through a chatbot (Glazer: “A concierge 62 may be present to assist the user with the virtual shopping experience. The concierge 62 may be present in any form such as a human, or the robot as illustrated in FIGS. 4A and 4B. The concierge 62 may be used to assist the user in shopping through the mall, help find merchandise, help find a store, and the like. The concierge may use any or all the virtual reality elements may be used to effect the help experience such as speech simulation, speech recognition, text, and the like.” [0053] – “A concierge introduces himself to the user at 108 to assist the user with directions, information, and the like.” [0077] – “Through … the concierge 62, … a dialog may automatically be presented to the shopper offering shopping tips, information about similar products, features, special product offers, and whatever else may be deemed of interest to the customer. … the automated dialog may offer promotions” [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wiedmeyer would continue to teach providing, via the VR interface, assistance to the first customer, except that now it would also teach that the assistance is provided through a chatbot, according to the teachings of Glazer. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to enhance a user’s shopping experience to make shopping online more efficient and appealing (Glazer: [0006]).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer, in view of Glazer, and further in view of Siddique.
Regarding Claim 19, Wiedmeyer/Glazer teach the method of claim 18, but do not specifically teach enabling, via the VR interface, the first customer to share first cart contents of the first cart with the second customer and allowing the first customer to obtain a particular item from a second cart of the second customer.
However, Siddique teaches a virtual reality simulation of a store (Siddique: [126]), including enabling, via the VR interface, the first customer to share first cart contents of the first cart with the second customer and allowing the first customer to obtain a particular item from a second cart of the second customer (Siddique: “users can view the contents of each other's shopping carts …They can mark items with user tags that can be shared between members of the shopping trip.” [0207] – “Users can also pick and choose which items from each of the members shopping carts they would like to pay for. An exemplary embodiment of such a method is illustrated in FIG. 21E. As shown in this figure, a user has chosen to pay for his “Red Jersey”, Alisha's sweater, and Robin's socks and tuque. The user's total is also shown. Items that are paid for are shipped to the respective users (shopping cart owners) or can be shipped to a common address (common to all users). … Users can drag and drop items from a shared shopping cart into a list under their name. The list indicates the items that the user would like to pay for” [0221]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wiedmeyer/Glazer would continue to teach enabling, via the VR interface, selection of a VR item for a first cart associated with the first customer, except it would additionally teach enabling, via the VR interface, the first customer to share first cart contents of the first cart with the second customer and allowing the first customer to obtain a particular item from a second cart of the second customer, according to the teachings of Siddique. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved immersive experience for users (Siddique: [0120]).
Regarding Claim 20, Wiedmeyer/Glazer/Siddique teach the method of claim 19, further comprising, rendering, via the VR interface, a first avatar for the first customer and rendering a second avatar for the second customer within the VR room (Wiedmeyer: “determine that the first user is accessing the system via the first VR display device and the second user is accessing the system via the second VR display device; and before sending the simulation data to the first VR display device and the second VR display device generate a first avatar object visually representing the first user, generate a second avatar object visually representing the second user; and insert the first avatar object and the second avatar object into the simulation data to enable the first user and the second user to see each other in the synchronized simulation.” [0025] – “The viewers and presenter may see and interact with the avatars of the others during the review simulation.” [0086] - See also [0109]).
Regarding Claim 21, Wiedmeyer/Glazer teach the method of claim 18, further comprising rendering, by the VR interface, a VR shelf adjacent to a VR terminal during the checkout transaction and displaying particular VR items on the VR shelf (Wiedmeyer: “illustrated in FIG. 6, when an entire store is simulated, the visual representation 600 may be rendered … the user may view the layout of the interior of the store (i.e., aisles, shelves, cashier stations, room interiors, etc.)” [0075] – “The user can pick up an item (i.e., an asset object) and either return it to the shelf or put it in the user's shopping basket (step 1210). When finished shopping, the user may execute a checkout process (step 1212), such as by going to a cash register in the simulated store.” [0108] – See Figure 6 – “store user data identifying the first user and describing one or more shopping preferences of the first user; … determine, from the plurality of products, a plurality of preferred products associated with the one or more shopping preferences of the first user and produce the second arrangement such that the plurality of asset objects in the VR simulation generated based on the second arrangement includes representations of, from the plurality of products, only the plurality of preferred products.” [0014]),
But does not specifically teach that the items are based on a transaction history associated with the first customer.
However, Siddique teaches a virtual reality simulation of a store (Siddique: [126]), including virtual items based on a transaction history associated with the first customer (Siddique: “system 10 makes recommendations to the user on stores, brands, apparel as well as provides fit information” [0144] – “recommendations are made to the user based on information collected on the variables in the user's profile (example: preferences, style, interests) as well as based on the user's purchasing and browsing history.” [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Wiedmeyer/Glazer would continue to teach rendering, by the VR interface, a VR shelf adjacent to a VR terminal during the checkout transaction and displaying particular VR items on the VR shelf, except that now it would also teach that the items are based on a transaction history associated with the first customer, according to the teachings of Siddique. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved immersive experience for users (Siddique: [0120]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection – 35 §USC 101
Applicant argues that “the claim as amended does not merely recite commercial interactions or following rules. Rather, it recites a specific, integrated technical process: obtaining item identifiers from at least one catalog service; mapping identifiers to item images; obtaining a model of a store; using the model to dynamically render item images within a VR store; activating a VR session manager that tracks customer location, navigates the customer, and assists the customer during the session; and processing payment at a virtual transaction terminal within the VR store.” Applicant asserts that “this is a specific technical implementation, not a generalized abstract idea.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, these steps, namely “obtaining item identifiers from at least one catalog service; mapping identifiers to item images; obtaining a model of a store; using the model to … render item images within a … store; activating a … session manager that tracks customer location, navigates the customer, and assists the customer during the session; and processing payment at a … transaction terminal within the .. store” are part of the abstract idea itself, providing a concept for a personalized shopping experience. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. The additional elements, such as elements being virtual, VR, or performed “dynamically,” are invoked at a high level of generality as mere instructions to apply this abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)], providing only a general linking to computer technology.
Applicant further argues that “the amended claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claims reflect a specific technical improvement to how VR shopping systems operate.” Applicant argues that “The Specification expressly identifies the technical problem being solved:” existing systems “do not accurately reflect available inventory at a store…it is a hassle to manually search for each specific item desired…it is tedious and difficult to compare similar items for prices…without holding and touching the items …existing online shopping does not accurately reflect available inventory … consumers find in-store shopping deteriorated by social distancing requirements and difficulty finding assistance.” Applicant argues that “the claimed invention solves these problems not by simply automating a known business practice, but by providing … a unified, technically integrated VR system.” Applicant makes reference to Desjardins, and further argues that the claims recite “a specific, integrated technical architecture in which a VR session manager interacts with a catalog service, a model of a store, a VR interface, and a transaction terminal to create a unified, technically improved VR shopping experience that addresses specific technical deficiencies in prior approaches.”
Examiner disagrees. The claims do not appear to address item availability or item comparison as argued; the alleged solutions are rooted solely in the abstract idea, such that they are at best business solutions to a business problem. Whereas Desjardins defined a specific problem known in machine learning technology and claimed a specific solution to that problem, the pending claims provide an abstract idea which at best provides alleged business improvements, with the additional elements invoked at a high level of generality as instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment, i.e. “simply automating” the abstract method [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. The argued integration of elements, such as the catalog service, model, transaction system, session manager, etc. are part of the abstract idea itself, except for a general linking to computer technology provided by additional elements reciting that these elements should exist in VR or on a computer.
Applicant further argues that “the specific combination of (1) obtaining item identifiers from at least one catalog service; (2) mapping identifiers to item images; (3) obtaining a model of a store; (4) dynamically rendering item images within a VR store using the model; (5) activating a VR session manager that tracks customer location, navigates the customer, and provides assistance in real time during the session; and (6) processing payment at a virtual transaction terminal within the VR store - represents a specific, non-conventional, non-generic arrangement of elements that provides technical improvements over existing approaches.”
Examiner disagrees. As addressed above, these are abstract steps except for a general linking to computer technology provided by additional elements which are invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim Rejection – 35 §USC 102
Applicant argues that “Wiedmeyer does not disclose obtaining item identifiers from at least one catalog service – that is, an external catalog service from which item identifiers are dynamically obtained for purposes of populating a VR store,” and that Wiedmeyer only provides for “asset identifiers maintained within an internal database.”
Examiner disagrees, and notes that the claims do not recite, “an external catalog service from which item identifiers are dynamically obtained for purposes of populating a VR store.” With reference to the rejection above, Wiedmeyer teaches the recited limitation of the claim; with the system collecting item identifiers, such as a SKU, associated with each product/asset [0071]. This product data can be collected from sources including third-party data sources and from merchants or product marketing services [0101]. A merchant or marketing service providing data on available products is understood to constitute a catalog service, in that it provides a list of items/assets along with data to describe each product, such as the claimed identifier.
Applicant concedes that Wiedmeyer “allows users to navigate and interact with a VR environment,” but argues that it “does not disclose a VR session manager that performs the integrated, unified functions of tracking customer location, navigating the customer through the store, and providing assistance to the customer as an integrated set of operations tied to a single session management component.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, Wiedmeyer teaches a VR platform that handles user logins and allows users to enter a simulation together [0109]. The simulation is customized to the user(s) it is generated for and accessed by [0049]. Thus, the VR platform constitutes an element that manages the simulation session, including a unique instance of a VR store generated specifically for a logged-in customer. This VR platform performs the steps acknowledged by Applicant, and further allows the system to “track…user movements” and “travel paths…through the store” [0100], providing the ability for the user to transport/move within the store “such as by walking” [0087] or by teleporting [0099], and assists the customer in a number of ways, including by providing “shelves loaded with …descriptive signage, pricing information” [0074] and allowing the user to pick up & examiner objects [0108], thus assisting the user in evaluating items for sale, and by teleporting the user and providing them a preview of their new location “to minimize the jarring effects,” [0099], thus assisting the user in comfortably navigating the store. The abilities to explore the store, interact with products, and receive information about products and locations are, as argued, “an integrated set of operations tied to a single session management component” – the VR platform, which provides these operations within a single session.
Applicant further argues that “Wiedmeyer does not disclose processing payment via the VR session manager at a virtual transaction terminal within the VR store,” arguing that “In Wiedmeyer, the payment processing is handled by a separate transaction processing module…that is distinct from the session management function.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above and the response to the preceding argument, Wiedmeyer teaches a VR platform that manages a session for the user, providing a unique instance of a VR simulation in which they can shop – “the session management function” acknowledged by Applicant in this argument. Within this session, the user can pick up items and put them in a basket, then, when finished shopping, can execute a checkout process by going to a cash register in the simulated store [0108], i.e. within the session managed by the system. This checkout process can utilize a transaction processer within the VR platform to execute aspects of the checkout process “within the user’s customized store.” [0049] This transaction processing module is part of the same central server than handles the generation and execution of this simulation for the user’s session. [0079].
Applicant argues that “Wiedmeyer does not anticipate claim 2,” so “the rejection of claims 2-3 and 7-8…should be withdrawn.”
Examiner disagrees for the reasons addressed in the rejection and response to arguments above.
Claim Rejection – 35 §USC 103
Applicant argues that, “based on the amendments and remarks presented above,” the dependent claims rejected under 103 are similarly “in condition for allowance.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons addressed in the rejection and response above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mattingly et al (US 20180174122 A1) teaches virtual-reality collaborative shopping in which users may check out at a point-of-sale terminal within the VR store.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9-5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights