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) 1-20 have been examined.
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 1-20 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 method, medium, and system.
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:
receiving data collected via one or more sensors and one or more cameras mounted on the cart, the received data including a plurality of times at which the cart passed a plurality of physical elements within the physical space, sensor data for determining a speed at which the cart was moving at the physical space during the plurality of times, and images of the plurality of physical elements;
determining, based on the received data, information describing the physical space, the information comprising one or more attributes of the plurality of physical elements within the physical space and an arrangement of the plurality of physical elements within the physical space, the arrangement of the plurality of physical elements including dimensions of the plurality of physical elements within the physical space and distances between the plurality of physical elements within the physical space;
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity because it involves commercial interactions such as marketing behaviors and/or activities.
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:
via a network and from a cart at a physical space,
applying a machine-learned item availability model to the received data and an indication about whether a prior availability prediction for an item at the physical space was correct to determine a probability of an availability of the item at the physical space and a confidence score representing an error of the probability of availability;
generating a rendering of the physical space in a virtual reality environment based at least in part on the information describing the physical space, the probability of availability, and the confidence score, wherein the rendering of the physical space includes a plurality of virtual reality elements representing a set of the plurality of physical elements, and the plurality of virtual reality elements are arranged based at least in part on the arrangement of the plurality of physical elements;
sending, via the network, the rendering of the physical space for display at a device associated with a user of an online system;
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 these 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, claims 2-4 and 7-11 do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 5-6 and their similar dependent claims, these claims are directed to the abstract idea itself.
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:
via a network and from a cart at a physical space,
applying a machine-learned item availability model to the received data and an indication about whether a prior availability prediction for an item at the physical space was correct to determine a probability of an availability of the item at the physical space and a confidence score representing an error of the probability of availability;
generating a rendering of the physical space in a virtual reality environment based at least in part on the information describing the physical space, the probability of availability, and the confidence score, wherein the rendering of the physical space includes a plurality of virtual reality elements representing a set of the plurality of physical elements, and the plurality of virtual reality elements are arranged based at least in part on the arrangement of the plurality of physical elements;
sending, via the network, the rendering of the physical space for display at a device associated with a user of an online system.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,947. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are a broader version of the reference claims. Instant claim(s) 1-20 fully “read-on” or are anticipated by reference claim(s) 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,947B1. This is a non-statutory, obviousness-type Double Patenting rejection with an anticipation analysis. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1).
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) s 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haapoja (US 2022/0383396) in view of Carter (US 2017/0066464) in further view of Rao (US 2019/0236740).
Referring to Claim 1, Haapoja teaches a method, performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, comprising:
receiving, via a network, data collected by cameras and sensors at a physical space, including images of physical elements (see Haapoja ¶¶0062-63, images and product positioning sensor data is transmitted over network 328 to analytics server 318);
determining, based on the received data, attributes and an arrangement of the plurality of physical elements, including dimensions and distances between the elements (see Haapoja ¶¶0063,81-86, measured distances between objects, dimensions of shelves and products, and their locations in the store);
generating a rendering of the physical space in a virtual reality environment based at least in part on the information describing the physical space, based on the physical-space information including virtual elements representing physical elements and arranged based on their physical arrangement (see Haapoja ¶¶0084-90,102, a virtual store corresponding to the physical store, with products at corresponding locations);
sending, via the network, the rendering of the physical space for display at a device associated with a user of an online system (see Haapoja ¶¶0051-55,153, transmitting the virtual store to the customer device through network 328).
Haapoja does not teach wherein the cart is a shopping cart nor does it teach receiving cart passage times and sensor data for determining speed during those times. However, Carter teaches this (see Carter ¶0149 and Fig. 2, the cart is a shopping cart and accelerometer measurements are captured of the cart along with timed observations of it crossing successive floor joints which is used to estimate speed; also ¶0042, wireless communication of cart position and average wheel speed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the cart in Haapoja would continue to be a cart except that now it would be a shopping cart and data on it would be received and could be used to determine the cart speed according to the teachings of Carter. This is a predictable result of the combination.
The combination does not explicitly teach applying a machine-learned item availability model to the received data and an indication about whether a prior availability prediction for an item at the physical space was correct to determine a probability of an availability of the item at the physical space and a confidence score representing an error of the probability of availability. However, Rao teaches this (see Rao ¶¶0024-25,34,41, using such a model with item, warehouse, and timing information, with confidence based on whether previously available predictions were accurate; also see ¶0053-56, using probability and confidence thresholds to control item selection and display warnings or alternatives). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination would continue to render the physical store and its arrangement, except that now it would include using a machined learned item availability model to determine probability of availability as taught by Rao. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 2, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining an update to the information describing the physical space and updating the rendering of the physical space based at least in part on the update to the information describing the physical space, and sending, via the network, the updated rendering of the physical space for display at the device associated with the user (see Haapoja ¶¶0092-94, updating the store model from newly captured images; ¶0097, rendering or refreshing the model at the customer device; ¶0153, network transmission);
Referring to Claim 3, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the network and from the device associated with the user, data corresponding to an interaction by the user via the device with one or more of the plurality of virtual reality elements, the interaction including placing the one or more virtual reality elements into a virtual reality element; responsive to placing the one or more virtual reality elements into the virtual reality element, initiating a fulfillment of an order associated with the user (see Haapoja ¶¶0055-56,66, networked user-device interaction data; ¶0091, virtual product controls including placement of the items in the shopping cart; ¶0044,47-49, the cart contents proceed through a checkout in order to create a merchant order which triggers the fulfillment services).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, via the network and from the device associated with the user, information describing one or more interactions of the user via the device with one or more of the plurality of virtual reality elements in the virtual reality environment; communicating, via the network, the information describing the one or more interactions to an entity associated with the physical space (see Haapoja ¶¶0051,55-56,66, networked customer and merchant devices and virtual-store interactions; ¶¶0027, merchant reports of customer activity and their engagement).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of physical elements within the physical space comprises one or more of: one or more items at the physical space, an aisle, a shelf, a display area, a service counter, a dispenser, a sign, a human, an employee at the physical space, the cart, a shopping basket, or a building element (see Haapoja ¶0081).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more attributes of the plurality of physical elements comprise one or more of: a brand associated with a physical element of the plurality of physical elements, a size of the physical element, a packaging of the physical element, an image associated with the physical element, a text associated with the physical element, a price of the physical element, a color of the physical element, a quantity associated with the physical element, a version of the physical element, a dimension of the physical element, or a texture of the physical element (see Haapoja ¶¶0082-83).
Referring to Claim 7, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, via the network and from the device associated with the user, a request to generate the rendering of the physical space in the virtual reality environment; responsive to receiving the request, accessing, at a database of the online system, a user profile of the user, the user profile including information describing a geographic location associated with the user and a set of historical actions performed by the user, wherein the set of historical actions is associated with one or more of the plurality of physical elements, wherein generating the rendering of the physical space comprises generating the rendering of the physical space further based on the user profile (see Haapoja ¶¶0022,56,57, customer-device requests and hosted virtual-store access; ¶¶0097,99-100,103, querying the customer profiles containing location geography and historical product interactions in order to customize rendering).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination teaches the method of claim 7, wherein generating the rendering of the physical space comprises: retrieving, from the database, information describing a geographic location associated with the physical space; generating the rendering of the physical space further based on the geographic location associated with the physical space (see Haapoja ¶¶0097,99,103, the customer may be in a retail store and their geographic location in their history is used to customize the products which are then presented in the customized virtual environment).
Referring to Claim 9, the combination teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
initiating the rendering of the physical space further based on the geographic location associated with the physical space when the geographic location associated with the physical space is within a threshold distance from the geographic location associated with the user. However, Rao teaches selecting warehouses using warehouse locations and a threshold distances from customer geographic locations (see Rao ¶0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination would continue to generate renderings except that now they would be initiated based on when a geographic location of the space is within a threshold distance of the user as taught by Rao. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 10, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via a network and from a second device associated with a second user of the online system, a request to generate an additional rendering of the physical space in the virtual reality environment (see Haapoja ¶¶0022,51);
accessing, at a database of the online system, a user profile of the second user, the user profile including information describing a geographic location associated with the second user and a set of historical actions performed by the second user, wherein the set of historical actions is associated with one or more of the plurality of physical elements (see Haapoja ¶¶0057,97-100,103);
generating the additional rendering of the physical space based at least in part on the information describing the physical space and the user profile, wherein the additional rendering of the physical space includes a second plurality of virtual reality elements representing a second set of the plurality of physical elements and the second plurality of virtual reality elements are arranged based at least in part on the arrangement of the plurality of physical elements (see Haapoja ¶¶0084,89-90,102);
sending, via the network, the additional rendering of the physical space for display to the second device associated with the second user (see Haapoja ¶0102).
Referring to Claim 11, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the rendering of the physical space comprises:
generating a first version of the rendering of the physical space in the virtual reality environment in which a first virtual reality element of the plurality of virtual reality elements is located at a first position relative to a second virtual reality element of the plurality of virtual reality elements (see Haapoja ¶¶0089-90, the virtual products are anchored to display surfaces);
generating a second version of the rendering of the physical space in the virtual reality environment in which the first virtual reality element is located at a second position relative to the second virtual reality element (see Haapoja ¶¶0094, a new product anchor following physical movement; ¶0120, repositioning products and surfaces in the rendered model).
Referring to Claims 12-20, these claims are similar to claims 1-11 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Remarks
Additional prior art relevant to the invention but not relied upon includes:
Magee (US 2021/0124924) which teaches a virtual shopping cart in a physical store;
Gowda (US 10,565,550) teaches real-time scanning of a physical store in 3D
Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches 3D e-commerce shopping in virtual reality
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764 and Abdi Kambiz can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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