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 Election filed on 2/4/2026. Claims 2-12 are pending and have been examined. Claims 13-21 are withdrawn; claim 1 stands cancelled.
Election
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that the groups I & II “are not separate inventions but rather complementary steps in a unified VR shopping process. One cannot maintain a cart and process payment (Invention II) without first rendering VR store items (Invention I). The inventions are capable of use together and, in fact, are designed to be used together as part of a single cohesive shopping experience.” Applicant further argues that “the inventions would require substantially the same prior art search,” stating that both groups require examination of the same general, broad categories of technology, and states that “The allegedly "different modes of operation" are simply sequential steps in the same overall process. A prior art reference teaching VR store rendering with item mapping would likely also teach or suggest cart maintenance and payment processing, as these are fundamental to any complete shopping system.”
This is not found persuasive because the two groups are directed to independent or distinct inventions. In particular, each group recites limitations not recited in the other, e.g. Group I recites obtaining an item identifier for an item; 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 virtual reality (VR) store. While Group II recites maintaining a cart associated with a customer in the VR shopping session; providing information for each VR store item to the customer during the VR shopping session; and processing a payment of the customer for a selected VR store item added to the cart during the VR shopping session. While these distinct methods may fall into the same general category of VR technology, they are performing different operations. Rather than requiring the same prior art search, these two different inventions teach steps that are part of two different aspects of VR shopping; one, a method of creating a VR store, the other, a shopping method in a VR store – regardless of creation method – with specific details about the shopping experience and checkout. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “One cannot maintain a cart and process payment (Invention II) without first rendering VR store items (Invention I),” it is noted that the two groups of distinct invention do not require each other to operate, e.g. Group I does not require the cart and payment processing aspects of Group II, and Group II does not require the specific method of store-rendering of Group I. Similarly, it is recognized that prior-art searches for these two distinct inventions would require specific searches in distinct areas of technology, one involving the construction and population of VR spaces, the other the customer-facing experience for item interaction, cart maintenance, and checkout.
With respect to groups I & III, Applicant similarly argues that “these are complementary features of a unified VR shopping system, not independent inventions. The chatbot assistance and customer interaction features of Invention III necessarily depend upon and build upon the VR store rendering of Invention I. One cannot track customer navigation or provide chatbot assistance without first having established the rendered VR store environment.” Applicant further argues that “the prior art search for these inventions would substantially overlap, requiring examination of” the same general, broad categories of technology.
This is not found persuasive because the two groups are directed to independent or distinct inventions. In particular, each group recites limitations not recited in the other, e.g. Group I recites obtaining an item identifier for an item; 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 virtual reality (VR) store. While Group III recites tracking, via the VR interface, a first customer navigating through the VR store; enabling, via the VR interface, selection of a VR item for a first cart associated with the first customer; providing, via the VR interface, assistance to the first customer through a chatbot; enabling, via the VR interface, interaction between the first customer and a second customer within a VR room of the VR store; and processing, via the VR interface, payment on behalf of the first customer during a checkout transaction associated with the first cart. While these distinct methods may fall into the same general category of VR technology, they are performing different operations. Rather than requiring the same prior art search, these two different inventions teach steps that are part of two different aspects of VR shopping; one, a method of creating a VR store, the other, a shopping method in a VR store – regardless of creation method – with specific details about the shopping experience and checkout, including navigation tracking, chatbot functionality, and user-to-user interactions. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The chatbot assistance and customer interaction features of Invention III necessarily depend upon and build upon the VR store rendering of Invention I. One cannot track customer navigation or provide chatbot assistance without first having established the rendered VR store environment” it is noted that the two groups of distinct invention do not require each other to operate, e.g. Group I does not require the cart, chatbot, or payment processing aspects of Group III, and Group III does not require the specific method of store-rendering of Group I. Similarly, it is recognized that prior-art searches for these two distinct inventions would require specific searches in distinct areas of technology, one involving the construction and population of VR spaces, the other the customer-facing experience for user-to-user interaction, navigation tracking, and chatbot functionality.
With respect to Groups II & III, Applicant similarly argues that “these inventions are complementary aspects of managing a VR shopping session. Cart maintenance (Invention II) occurs simultaneously with customer tracking and assistance (Invention III) during the same VR session,” and that “Prior art references teaching VR shopping with cart management would likely also teach or suggest customer tracking, assistance features, and multi-user interaction, as these are standard features in comprehensive VR shopping platforms.”
This is not found persuasive because the two groups are directed to independent or distinct inventions. In particular, each group recites limitations not recited in the other, e.g. Group II recites maintaining a cart associated with a customer in the VR shopping session; providing information for each VR store item to the customer during the VR shopping session; and processing a payment of the customer for a selected VR store item added to the cart during the VR shopping session. While Group III recites tracking, via the VR interface, a first customer navigating through the VR store; enabling, via the VR interface, selection of a VR item for a first cart associated with the first customer; providing, via the VR interface, assistance to the first customer through a chatbot; enabling, via the VR interface, interaction between the first customer and a second customer within a VR room of the VR store; and processing, via the VR interface, payment on behalf of the first customer during a checkout transaction associated with the first cart. While these distinct methods may fall into the same general category of VR technology, they are performing different operations. Rather than requiring the same prior art search, these two different inventions teach steps that are part of two different aspects of VR shopping; namely, two distinct methods for shopping in a VR store, one with a focus on specific cart details and item manipulation, the other focused on navigation, a chatbot, and user-to-user contact. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Cart maintenance (Invention II) occurs simultaneously with customer tracking and assistance (Invention III) during the same VR session” it is noted that the two groups of distinct invention do not require each other to operate, e.g. Group I does not require the cart, chatbot, or payment processing aspects of Group III, and Group III does not require the specific method of store-rendering of Group I. Similarly, it is recognized that prior-art searches for these two distinct inventions would require specific searches in distinct areas of technology, one involving the maintenance of a cart for checkout in a VR space, the other the customer-facing experience for user-to-user interaction, navigation tracking, and chatbot functionality.
Applicant further argues that “All three invention groups fall within G06Q 30/06 (electronic shopping) subclasses, demonstrating they are closely related subject matter within the same general field. The Examiner has not provided specific evidence that: . Different databases or search resources would be required . Different search strategies would be necessary . Examination of one invention would not significantly inform examination of the others. The prior art for each invention would be materially different. In fact, a search for VR shopping systems would necessarily retrieve references teaching rendering items in VR (Invention I), cart management and payment processing (Invention II), and customer assistance and interaction features (Invention III), as these are all standard components of comprehensive VR shopping platforms.”
This is not found persuasive because the three groups are directed to independent or distinct inventions. Each of these inventions would require searching in different areas of the general VR technological field; one in the construction and population of VR spaces, another in the maintenance of a cart and checkout operation in a VR store, the third the integration of chatbot functionality and navigation tracking alongside user-to-user interactions in a virtual space. Each of these distinct groupings may share a common field insofar as they each recite elements of VR shopping, but each grouping is distinct operationally and with respect to prior-art search burden.
Applicant further argues that “Requiring restriction among these integrated features improperly fragments what is disclosed and claimed as a single invention. The dependent claims in each group build upon and complement one another, further demonstrating the integrated nature of the invention.”
This is not found persuasive because the three groups are directed to independent or distinct inventions. Rather than integrating the three distinct inventions, the dependent claims further highlight the differences therebetween. As addressed above, each of these groupings recites different operations within the general field of VR shopping, and rather than being integrated together, claim operations related to different stages of VR shopping (e.g. Group I vs Groups II & III), and different embodiments of customer experience (e.g. Group II vs Group III).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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;
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;
providing a display for the generated store; and
establishing a session to enable a customer to interact with the generated store through the display..
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:
The method being computer implemented
Virtual reality (VR)
An 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 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 3-5, 8-11 these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of 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:
Virtual reality (VR)
An 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 & 7-8 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 (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]);
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 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] );
providing a VR interface for the 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]); and
establishing a VR session to enable a customer to interact with the VR store through the VR interface (Wiedmeyer: “When utilized by possible customers, the VR platform in the disclosure determines information about the purchase preferences of a user of the VR device, uses the information to identify products relevant to the user, and generates a VR simulation of a customized retail store that contains the identified products. The present VR platform may further couple the simulation with a transaction processor to enable the user to make purchases of products within the user's customized store.” [0049] – “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 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: “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]).
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]).
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 & 9-11 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 teach the method of claim 2, but Wiedmeyer does not 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 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 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 9, Wiedmeyer discloses the method of claim 8, wherein rendering further includes facilitating interactions 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]),
But does not specifically teach facilitating communications between the first customer and a second customer.
However, Siddique teaches a virtual reality simulation of a store (Siddique: [126]), including facilitating communications between the first customer and a second customer (Siddique: “the community module 52 further includes chat functionality that allows users to participate in text, video or voice communication with other users of the system 10. (The chat application may allow automatic translation to facilitate users who speak different languages to communicate). Further, users may interact with other users through engaging in collaborative virtual shopping trips” [0119]).
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 interactions between the first customer and a second customer within the VR room, except that now it would also teach facilitating communications between the first customer and a 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 10, Wiedmeyer/Siddique teach the method of claim 9, wherein 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 the claimed invention to combine Siddique with Wiedmeyer for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Wiedmeyer/Siddique teach 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 9.
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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Glazer et al (US 20180137561 A1) teaches VR shopping techniques, include a virtual mall where users can interact with items and each other, and view the contents of other shopping avatars’ carts.
Mattingly et al (US 20180174122 A1) teaches virtual-reality collaborative shopping.
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 8-5 MT.
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 on (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