Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, 16, 19-20, 22, 24, 26-27, 29-31, 33-34, 36, 87 have been examined.
The remaining claims have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12, 13, 16, 19, 26, 29, 31, 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first user". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 is rejected because it recites “a processor” in the preamble yet later recites “at least one processor” and “a client processor”, then says “wherein the processor” and thus it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art which one is the antecedent.
Claims 1 is rejected because it twice recites “a visual display device”. It would be unclear to one of ordinary skill whether these are the same visual display devices or different.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of items approved by the first user device” and later recites “the plurality of items approved by the first user device” but also switches to “the plurality of items approved by the first user” twice (without “device”), which lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected because claim 1 recites in this order: “a visual interaction experience”, “an interaction experience model”, “an interaction experience”. Then the claim recites in this order:
“the first interaction experience model” (what does this refer to?);
“a first interaction experience model” (which likely refers to the abovementioned line but appears subsequent);
“an interaction experience of the first interaction experience model” (is this different than the previously recited interaction experience?)
It would be unclear to one of ordinary skill whether some of these are referring to the same interaction experiences or different ones. As for claim 19, this claim also suffers similar issues.
Claim 7 recites “one or more further affiliates” which implies previously recited affiliates, but only “a first affiliate identifier” (an identifier, not an affiliate) was previously introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 31 recites the limitation "the set of customizations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the visual interface experience" but the claim previously only recited “a visual interaction experience”. It appears to be a typographical error. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "generating…the first community identifier" before “linking…a first community identifier”. So, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first recitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the second user". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 31 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “the interaction experience customization selection by the first user is selected from the group comprising…” is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the five recited customizations are directed to disparate and unrelated aspects of the interaction experience. Also, they do not belong to a single recognized physical, chemical or art-recognized class, and they share no substantial structural feature; their sole commonality is the generic functional label “customization”.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, the claim depends on canceled claim 9. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as depending on claim 1.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, the claim depends on canceled claim 25. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as depending on claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, 16, 19-20, 22, 24, 26-27, 29-31, 33-34, 36, 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a system and method.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
performs measurements or operations relating to items or the first user
identifies a plurality of items approved by the first user from the measurements or operations
receives the plurality of items approved by the first user device
This is an abstract idea because it is a they are directed to commercial interactions such as marketing or sales activities and/or behaviors.
Step 2A prong 2 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 use 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 such as:
at least one controller that does things;
a first user device of a plurality of user devices, wherein the first user device comprises a client processor that does things;
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the first user device;
at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and which stores processor-executable system instructions including an interface that receives things;
wherein the processor:
receives a selection, by the first user device, of a template for an interaction experience;
generates the first interaction experience model based on the plurality of items approved by the first user and the template for the interaction experience;
generates a first interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions based on the plurality of items approved by the first user device;
stores the first interaction experience model in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device;
generates an instance of an interaction experience of the first interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions by accessing the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device, and generates one or more visual elements of the interaction experience;
wherein a visual display device executes the interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions to cause a display screen to display the instance of the first interaction experience model and the one or more visual elements as part of the interaction experience.
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 designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of the additional limitations 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 designed 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 designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claim 2 which recites a sensor, claim 2 which describes more about the model, claim 7 which discusses the identifier, etc., do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. In addition, some of the other dependent claims such as 12 contain elements directed to the abstract idea (e.g., the plurality of items includes a respective item) and other elements such as generating a link which also does not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
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:
at least one controller that does things;
a first user device of a plurality of user devices, wherein the first user device comprises a client processor that does things;
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the first user device;
at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and which stores processor-executable system instructions including an interface that receives things;
wherein the processor:
receives a selection, by the first user device, of a template for an interaction experience;
generates the first interaction experience model based on the plurality of items approved by the first user and the template for the interaction experience;
generates a first interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions based on the plurality of items approved by the first user device;
stores the first interaction experience model in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device;
generates an instance of an interaction experience of the first interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions by accessing the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device, and generates one or more visual elements of the interaction experience;
wherein a visual display device executes the interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions to cause a display screen to display the instance of the first interaction experience model and the one or more visual elements as part of the interaction experience.
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they 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 designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 12-13, 16, 19-20, 22, 26-27, 29-31, 33-34, 36, 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (US 2011/0093361) in view of Kennedy (US 7,634,427).
Referring to Claim 1, Morales teaches a system for a visual interaction experience, wherein a processor generates one or more visual elements of the visual interaction experience, wherein a visual display device executes an interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions to selectively display the one or more visual elements as part of the visual interaction experience, the system comprising:
at least one controller that performs measurements or operations relating to items or the first user (see Morales ¶¶0126,57);
a first user device of a plurality of user devices, wherein the first user device comprises a client processor that identifies a plurality of items approved by the first user from the measurements or operations (see Morales ¶¶0072,90, a plurality of user computers/mobile devices with processors and browsers operated by an affiliate / social shop owner, who selects and approves the items / looks for the shop);
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the first user device (see Morales ¶¶0067,72, a server computer coupled to the user computers over network 122);
at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and which stores processor-executable system instructions including an interface that receives the plurality of items approved by the first user device (see Morales ¶¶0067,75,79, storage device 110, memory 106 storing program 150, including an affiliate interface receiving the affiliate’s submitted / approved items);
wherein the processor:
generates the first interaction experience model based on the plurality of items approved by the first user (see Morales ¶¶0089-90, generating the shop (model) from the affiliate’s approved items);
generates a first interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions based on the plurality of items approved by the first user device (see Morales ¶¶0089-90, creating / populating the social shop (model) from the affiliate’s approved items);
stores the first interaction experience model in the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device (see Morales ¶0090, saving and publishing the shop / looks to system storage);
generates an instance of an interaction experience of the first interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions by accessing the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage device, and generates one or more visual elements of the interaction experience (see Morales ¶¶0080,156-157, retrieving the stored shop on browse and rendering it as a page / look views (visual elements));
wherein a visual display device executes the interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions to cause a display screen to display the instance of the first interaction experience model and the one or more visual elements as part of the interaction experience (see Morales ¶¶0072,171, the user display device / browser rendering the shop, looks, and the items on the display screen).
While Morales teaches generation of the shop (the first interaction experience model) based on items approved by the first user, it does not teach wherein the generation is also based on a template for the interaction experience, and receiving a selection by the first user device of that template for the interaction experience. However, Kennedy teaches prompting a user to select a store type that is associated with a product theme and is pre-stocked with corresponding, criteria-scoped products from which the store owner selects, and wherein the generation of the shop is also based on the selected store-type template together with the user’s product selections (see Kennedy fig. 6, 7, 10; col. 1 lines 66-67 to col. 2 line 4; col. 6 line 61 to col. 8 line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these refences because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the system taught by Morales would continue to generate a shop based on items selected by the first user except that now the generation would be based on a template that the first user selected according to the teachings of Kennedy. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 2, the combination teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising at least one sensor that performs a portion of the measurements or operations relating to items or the first user, wherein the processor generates the first interaction experience model at least in part using the measurements (see Morales ¶¶0107,63,57).
Referring to Claim 7, the combination teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one processor links a first community identifier associated with the first interaction experience model (see Morales ¶¶0099,125, a style tribe is an identifiable community associated with the affiliate’s shop / recommendations), wherein the at least one processor generates the first community identifier based on one or more of: an activity, a location, a device type, a social network record, a second community identifier, a first affiliate identifier associated with the first user, or a second affiliate identifier associated with one or more further affiliates (see Morales ¶¶0119,123, the style tribe is generated based on various criteria such as geographic location, social network behaviors, records, etc).
Referring to Claim 12, the combination teaches the system of claim 9, wherein:
the plurality of items includes a respective item (see Morales ¶¶0090,157);
wherein the at least one processor generates the link to access the server providing the first interaction experience based on the first interaction experience model, wherein the link features the respective item (see Morales ¶¶0091-93, generating a promotional link to the shop that features a particular item and item-level sharing).
Referring to Claim 13, the combination teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one processor:
receives an interaction experience customization selected by the first user (see Morales ¶¶0074,89, selecting shop customizations such as branding, logos, avatars, images, etc);
generates a second interaction experience model based on the plurality of items and the set of customization selected by the first user, wherein the interaction experience customization selected by the first user (see Morales ¶¶0089-90, generating / populating the shop with the selected items and customizations);
is selected from the group comprising: item customization, esthetic customization, behavior customization, assistance customization, and rewards customization (see Morales ¶¶0074,89-93, branding, avatars, and rewards customizations).
Referring to Claim 16, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the interaction experience is a retail experience, and the plurality of items are goods and services for sale from a merchant (see Morales ¶¶0050,66,130, a retail shopping experience with goods and services for sale from affiliate merchants).
Referring to Claim 19, the combination teaches a computer implemented method for a visual interaction experience, the method for operation in an interaction system comprising a least one processor, at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and a first user device associated with a first user in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the processor generates one or more visual elements of the visual interaction experience, and wherein a display device selectively displays the one or more visual elements as part of the visual interface experience, the method comprising:
performing measurements or operations relating to items or the first user using at least one controller (see Morales ¶0126);
receiving, by the at least one processor from the first user device, a plurality of items approved by the first user in part based on the measurements or operations relating to the items or the first user performed using the at least one controller (see Morales ¶¶0072,90, a plurality of user computers/mobile devices with processors and browsers operated by an affiliate / social shop owner, who selects and approves the items / looks for the shop);
generating, by the at least one processor, a first interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions based on the plurality of items approved by the first user (see Morales ¶¶0089-90, creating / populating the social shop (model) from the affiliate’s approved items);
storing, by the at least one processor on the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium, the first interaction experience model (see Morales ¶0090, saving and publishing the shop / looks to system storage);
generating an instance of an interaction experience of the first interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions by accessing the at least one non-transitory processor-readable storage medium (see Morales ¶¶0080,156-157, retrieving the stored shop on browse and rendering it as a page / look views (visual elements));
generating one or more visual elements of the visual interaction experience and executing the interaction experience model defined in processor-executable instructions to cause a visual display device having a display screen to display the instance of the interaction experience of the first interaction experience model and the one or more visual elements as part of the interaction experience (see Morales ¶¶0072,171, the user display device / browser rendering the shop, looks, and the items on the display screen).
While Morales teaches generation of the shop (the first interaction experience model) based on items approved by the first user, it does not teach wherein the generation is also based on a template for the interaction experience, and receiving a selection by the first user device of that template for the interaction experience. However, Kennedy teaches prompting a user to select a store type that is associated with a product theme and is pre-stocked with corresponding, criteria-scoped products from which the store owner selects, and wherein the generation of the shop is also based on the selected store-type template together with the user’s product selections (see Kennedy fig. 6, 7, 10; col. 1 lines 66-67 to col. 2 line 4; col. 6 line 61 to col. 8 line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these refences because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the system taught by Morales would continue to generate a shop based on items selected by the first user except that now the generation would be based on a template that the first user selected according to the teachings of Kennedy. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 20, the combination teaches the method of claim 19 further comprising performing a portion of the measurements or operations relating to items or the first user using at least one sensor, and generating, by the at least one processor, the first interaction experience model at least in part using the measurements (see Morales ¶¶0107,63,57).
Referring to Claim 22, the combination teaches the method of claim 19 wherein the interaction experience comprises at least one of a visual interaction experience, an audio interaction experience, and a tactile interaction experience (see Morales ¶¶0052,171).
Referring to Claim 26, the combination teaches the method of claim 25 further comprising:
generating, by the at least one processor, the first community identifier based on one or more of: an activity, a location, a device type, a social network record, a second community identifier, a first affiliate identifier associated with the first user, or a second affiliate identifier associated with one or more further affiliates (see Morales ¶¶0119,123, the style tribe is generated based on various criteria such as geographic location, social network behaviors, records, etc) and linking, by the at least one processor, a first community identifier associated with the first interaction experience model (see Morales ¶¶0099,125, a style tribe is an identifiable community associated with the affiliate’s shop / recommendations).
Referring to Claim 27, the combination teaches the method of claim 19 further comprising:
generating, by the at least one processor, a link to access a server providing a first interaction experience based on the first interaction experience model, distributing, by the at least one processor, the link to access the server providing the first interaction experience based on the first interaction experience model (see Morales ¶¶0091-93, generating a promotional link to the shop that features a particular item and item-level sharing and distributing those links via email, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc).
Referring to Claim 29, the combination teaches the method of claim 27, further comprising:
distributing, by the at least one processor, the link to access the server providing the first interaction experience based on the first interaction experience model to a second user device associated with the second user in communication with the at least one processor (see Morales ¶¶0093,91, distributing the shop / look to another user and bumping an item / look to another user’s device).
Referring to Claim 30, the combination teaches the method of claim 27, wherein:
the plurality of items includes a respective item (see Morales ¶¶0090,157);
the method further comprising generating, by the at least one processor, the link to access the server providing the first interaction experience based on the first interaction experience model, wherein the link features the respective item (see Morales ¶¶0091-93, generating a promotional link to the shop that features a particular item and item-level sharing).
Referring to Claim 31, the combination teaches the method of claim 19 further comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor from the first user device, an interaction experience customization selected by the first user (see Morales ¶¶0074,89, selecting shop customizations such as branding, logos, avatars, images, etc);
generating, by the at least one processor, a second interaction experience model based on the plurality of items and the set of customization selected by the first user, wherein the interaction experience customization selected by the first user (see Morales ¶¶0089-90, generating / populating the shop with the selected items and customizations);
is selected from the group comprising: item customization, esthetic customization, behavior customization, assistance customization, and rewards customization (see Morales ¶¶0074,89-93, branding, avatars, and rewards customizations).
Referring to Claim 33, the combination teaches the method of claim 19 wherein:
the template for the interaction experience defines a boutique-type retail experience and defines a set of items for approval by the first user based on criteria comprising one or more of a quality level, item type, an activity associated with one or more items, aesthetic, or material composition of a good (see Kennedy fig. 6, 7, 10; col. 1 lines 66-67 to col. 2 line 4; col. 6 line 61 to col. 8 line 5).
Referring to Claim 34, the combination teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the interaction experience is a retail experience, and the plurality of items are goods and services for sale from a merchant (see Morales ¶¶0050,66,130, a retail shopping experience with goods and services for sale from affiliate merchants).
Referring to Claim 36, the combination teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising receiving one or more of affiliate data, user data, community data, and retail data, and updating the interaction experience model using the one or more of affiliate data, user data, community data, and retail data (see Morales ¶¶0095,119,123, receiving user data such as a Style DNA / profile and community data such as a Style Tribe and updating the recommendations / shop based on that data).
Referring to Claim 87, the combination teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the template for the interaction experience defines a boutique-type retail experience and defines a set of items for approval by the first user based on criteria comprising one or more of a quality level, item type, an activity associated with one or more items, aesthetic, or material composition of a good (see Kennedy fig. 6, 7, 10; col. 1 lines 66-67 to col. 2 line 4; col. 6 line 61 to col. 8 line 5).
Claim(s) 6 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales (US 2011/0093361) in view of Kennedy (US 7,634,427) in further view of Rose (US 2017/0287044).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination teaches system of claim 1 wherein the interaction experience comprises a fit surrogate interaction experience model, wherein the at least one processor: identifies one or more shared physical characteristics associated with a first affiliate and the first user (see Morales ¶¶0119,123, style-tribe based matching of similar users for curated recommendations / shops) and generates the fit surrogate interaction experience model using the shared one or more physical characteristics, and affiliate data associated with the first affiliate (see Morales ¶¶0123,0171, the curated / fit recommendation is generated from shared physical characteristics and affiliate data).
Morales does not explicitly teach identifies one or more shared gender identities associated with a first affiliate and the first user, and wherein the generation is further based on the one or more shared gender identities. However, Rose teaches assigning a human curator / stylist to another user by matching certain user profile details to those of the curator, including gender identities and its generated recommendations are based on those characteristics along with many more (see Rose ¶¶0068,92,141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Rose’s “gender identity” to the combination of Morales and Kennedy because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination of Morales and Kennedy would continue to teach identifying shared physical characteristics between the users and generating the fit surrogate interaction experience model based on that identification, except that now a “gender identity” would also be identified and applied during the generation step based on the teachings of Rose. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 24, the combination teaches the method of claim 19 wherein the interaction experience comprises a fit surrogate interaction experience model, the method further comprising: identifying one or more shared physical characteristics associated with a first affiliate and the first user (see Morales ¶¶0119,123, style-tribe based matching of similar users for curated recommendations / shops) and generating the fit surrogate interaction experience model using the shared one or more physical characteristics and affiliate data associated with the first affiliate (see Morales ¶¶0123,0171, the curated / fit recommendation is generated from shared physical characteristics and affiliate data).
Morales does not explicitly teach identifying one or more shared gender identities associated with a first affiliate and the first user, and wherein the generation is further based on the one or more shared gender identities. However, Rose teaches assigning a human curator / stylist to another user by matching certain user profile details to those of the curator, including gender identities and its generated recommendations are based on those characteristics along with many more (see Rose ¶¶0068,92,141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teachings of Rose’s “gender identity” to the combination of Morales and Kennedy because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination of Morales and Kennedy would continue to teach identifying shared physical characteristics between the users and generating the fit surrogate interaction experience model based on that identification, except that now a “gender identity” would also be identified and applied during the generation step based on the teachings of Rose. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Remarks
Additional prior art relevant to the claimed application but not relied upon includes:
Reference U (see PTO-892) which teaches clothing size recommendation using human body data and automatic size extraction.
Szymczyk (US 8,275,590) which teaches a simulation of wearing clothing items for a user.
FARIBAULT (US 2011/0078055) which teaches purchasing clothing items using an avatar visualization pane with an avatar virtually wearing the items.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights