DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 06/30/2025.
• Claim 10 has been amended.
• Claims 11 and 14 have been canceled.
• Claim 21-22 have been added.
• Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a divisional of US Patent No. 12354157, filed 11/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 07/13/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
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 1-10, 12-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a process, claims 8-10 and 12-13 are directed to a machine, and claims 15-22 are directed toward a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. 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 1 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 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
receiving, from a customer, a request to access an storefront associated with a merchant;
accessing storefront data representing the storefront, the storefront data including representations of items and respective positions within a space at which the representations of the items are positioned, the items having been selected from a catalogue of items offered for sale by the merchant via an existing storefront or an existing brick-and-mortar store; and
causing to display the storefront based at least in part on the storefront data.
The above limitations recite the concept of providing a storefront with item representations. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. As discussed in at least [0001] of the specification, the invention relates to customers purchasing items, a sales activity. Independent claim 5 recites similar limitations as claim 1. As such, claims 1, 8, and 15 fall within the same identified grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 5 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional elements, such as a computer-implemented method, a computing device, an electronic device, an extended reality storefront, digital representations, a virtual space, an online storefront, a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., providing a storefront with item representations) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 8, and 15 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 8, and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of providing a storefront with item representations is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 8, and 15 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, these claims recite additional elements, such as a computer-implemented method, a computing device, an electronic device, an extended reality storefront, digital representations, a virtual space, an online storefront, a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 8, and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of providing a storefront with item representations is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 8, and 15 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-22 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they further recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Dependent claims 4, 7, 18, and 21-22 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 19-20 further recite the additional elements of a virtual reality storefront, a browser, downloading, downloaded data, a first electronic device, a second electronic device, a datastore, and a link. Similar to the discussion above under Prong Two of Step 2A, although this additional computer-related elements is recited, claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-22 merely invoke such additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Further, this limitation generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-22 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-22, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, these limitations generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-22 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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 1-4, 8-10, 15-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 20220374968 A1), hereinafter Berger.
In regards to claim 1, Berger discloses a computer-implemented method comprising (Berger: [abstract]; [0010]):
receiving, by a computing device, from an electronic device of a customer, a request to access an extended reality storefront associated with a merchant (Berger: [0103-0104] and Fig. 5 – “a user interface 500 is provided on client device 102 of a first user. The user interface 500 includes a portal page that identifies a merchant or store by name 510. The user interface 500 includes a first option 520 to browse the virtual store of the identified merchant or store alone…In response to receiving input from the client device 102 indicating selection of the first option 520, the shared shopping experience system 224 launches a virtual reality version of the store”);
accessing, by the computing device, storefront data representing the extended reality storefront, the storefront data including digital representations of items and respective positions within a virtual space at which the digital representations of the items are positioned, the items having been selected from a catalogue of items offered for sale by the merchant via an existing online storefront or an existing brick-and-mortar store (Berger: [0059] – “the shared shopping experience system 224 can access an inventory of the store associated with the virtual store…The shared shopping experience system 224 can select how many virtual reality items to present based on the inventory of the store. For example, the shared shopping experience system 224 can determine that there are 30 pants available in the store inventory. In response, the shared shopping experience system 224 can display up to a maximum of 7 virtual reality items corresponding to pants in a first stack of virtual reality items”; [0112] and Fig. 7A – “a virtual reality shirt corresponding to the virtual reality item 722 is displayed in a first size in a stack of virtual reality items, as shown in FIG. 7A”; [0050] – “a virtual store that looks like the physical store of the merchant”; [0104] – “a plurality of virtual items corresponding to real-world items (e.g., physical items) sold by the merchant or store”; [0062] – “generate…various virtual items representing products associated with the store”; see also [0031] and Figs. 2 and 9); and
causing, by the computing device, the electronic device to display the extended reality storefront based at least in part on the storefront data (Berger: [0062] – “generate a virtual or augmented reality storefront that includes various virtual items representing products associated with the store”; [0112] and Fig. 7A – “a virtual reality shirt corresponding to the virtual reality item 722 is displayed in a first size in a stack of virtual reality items, as shown in FIG. 7A”; [0054] – “the 3D space of the virtual store”; see also [0059]; Fig. 9).
In regards to claim 2, Berger discloses the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses wherein: the extended reality storefront comprises a virtual reality storefront; the request is received from a browser executing on the electronic device (Berger: [0103-0104] and Fig. 5 – “a first option 520 to browse the virtual store of the identified merchant or store…In response to receiving input from the client device 102 indicating selection of the first option 520, the shared shopping experience system 224 launches a virtual reality version of the store”; [0062] – “generate a virtual or augmented reality storefront that includes various virtual items representing products associated with the store”; [0059] – “The shared shopping experience system 224 can detect input from a client device 102 indicating selection of the virtual reality item corresponding to the dress”; [0138] – “the applications 1206 may include…a browser application 1232… The applications 1206 are programs that execute functions defined in the programs”; see also [0134] and Fig. 12);
the computer-implemented method further comprises downloading at least some of the storefront data to the electronic device as downloaded storefront data (Berger: [0070] and Fig. 3 – “database 126 can also store data pertaining to individual and shared AR sessions. This data can include…data communicated between the AR session client controller and the augmentation system 208”; [0040] – “augmentation system 208 can communicate with the client device 102 and/or the shared shopping experience system 224 to establish individual or shared AR/VR sessions”; [0050] – “provides displays or the VR store to the users”; [0001] – “providing augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR) experiences using a messaging application”; [0073-0074] – “augmentation data that may be stored within the image table 312 includes augmented reality content items (e.g., corresponding to applying augmented reality experiences)…augmentation data includes augmented reality content items, overlays, image transformations, AR images, and similar terms that refer to modifications that may be applied to image data (e.g., videos or images)…This also includes modifications to stored content, such as video clips in a gallery that may be modified”; [0043-0044] – “applications hosted by external resource servers 110 are programmed in JavaScript leveraging a Software Development Kit (SDK) provided by the messaging server 118. The SDK includes APIs with functions that can be called or invoked by the web-based application… the SDK is downloaded”); and
the causing of the electronic device to display the virtual reality storefront comprises causing the browser to display the virtual reality storefront based at least in part on the downloaded storefront data (Berger: [0070] and Fig. 3 – “database 126 can also store data pertaining to individual and shared AR sessions. This data can include…data communicated between the AR session client controller and the augmentation system 208”; [0040] – “augmentation system 208 can communicate with the client device 102 and/or the shared shopping experience system 224 to establish individual or shared AR/VR sessions”; [0050] – “provides displays or the VR store to the users”; [0001] – “providing augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR) experiences using a messaging application”; [0073-0074] – “augmentation data that may be stored within the image table 312 includes augmented reality content items (e.g., corresponding to applying augmented reality experiences)…augmentation data includes augmented reality content items, overlays, image transformations, AR images, and similar terms that refer to modifications that may be applied to image data (e.g., videos or images)…This also includes modifications to stored content, such as video clips in a gallery that may be modified”; [0043-0044] – “applications hosted by external resource servers 110 are programmed in JavaScript leveraging a Software Development Kit (SDK) provided by the messaging server 118. The SDK includes APIs with functions that can be called or invoked by the web-based application… the SDK is downloaded”).
In regards to claim 3, Berger discloses the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses
wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, the computer-implemented method further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, device data from a second electronic device of a user associated with the merchant (Berger: [0035] – “the augmentation system 208 uses the geolocation of the client device 102 to identify a media overlay that includes the name of a merchant at the geolocation of the client device 102”; [0041] – “the map system 210 enables the display of user icons or avatars (e.g., stored in profile data 316) on a map to indicate a current or past location of “friends” of a user”; [0053-0054] – “present indicators on respective displays of the users who are currently engaged in the shared shopping experience that identify which users are engaged in the shared shopping experience and their current 3D positions. The indicators can be conditionally displayed on the basis of whether a client device 102 of a given user points towards a direction in 3D of another user. For example, a client device 102 of a first user can be pointed towards a field of view corresponding to a first portion of the virtual store while a second user is virtually located in a second portion of the virtual store that is 180 degrees away from the first portion…input is received from the client device 102 of the first user indicating movement through the virtual store (e.g., as the first user physically moves around the first user's environment or the first user selects an on-screen option to navigate the virtual store in a given direction, such as by swiping or tapping a given portion of the display)… determine that the current virtual position of a second user within the virtual store is intersected by the virtual surface normal. In response, the shared shopping experience system 224 displays an indicator of the second user.”; the examiner notes the user is associated with the merchant because they are shopping in the merchant space); and
determining, by the computing device, a position of a merchant avatar within the virtual space based at least in part on the device data, wherein the extended reality storefront displayed on the first electronic device includes the merchant avatar positioned at the position within the virtual space (Berger: [0055] – “the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users within the virtual store include pins. In some cases, the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users include avatars of the other users”; [0035] – “the augmentation system 208 uses the geolocation of the client device 102 to identify a media overlay that includes the name of a merchant at the geolocation of the client device 102”; [0041] – “the map system 210 enables the display of user icons or avatars (e.g., stored in profile data 316) on a map to indicate a current or past location of “friends” of a user”; [0053-0054] – “present indicators on respective displays of the users who are currently engaged in the shared shopping experience that identify which users are engaged in the shared shopping experience and their current 3D positions. The indicators can be conditionally displayed on the basis of whether a client device 102 of a given user points towards a direction in 3D of another user. For example, a client device 102 of a first user can be pointed towards a field of view corresponding to a first portion of the virtual store while a second user is virtually located in a second portion of the virtual store that is 180 degrees away from the first portion…input is received from the client device 102 of the first user indicating movement through the virtual store (e.g., as the first user physically moves around the first user's environment or the first user selects an on-screen option to navigate the virtual store in a given direction, such as by swiping or tapping a given portion of the display)… determine that the current virtual position of a second user within the virtual store is intersected by the virtual surface normal. In response, the shared shopping experience system 224 displays an indicator of the second user”; the examiner notes that “merchant avatar,” under broadest reasonable interpretation, is interpreted to be any other user avatar within the merchant store).
In regards to claim 4, Berger discloses the method of claim 3. Berger further discloses
receiving, by the computing device, and from the first electronic device, interaction data indicating an interaction of the customer with the merchant avatar (Berger: [0055] – “the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users within the virtual store include pins. In some cases, the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users include avatars of the other users”; [0061] – “The shared shopping experience system 224 can also allow the users engaged in the virtual shared shopping experience to exchange messages. For example, the shared shopping experience system 224 can allow a first user to type a message. The shared shopping experience system 224 can then present that message as an overlay of the virtual store presented to each of the users who are engaged in the shared shopping experience”); and
sending, by the computing device, an indication of the interaction to the second electronic device (Berger: [0055] – “the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users within the virtual store include pins. In some cases, the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users include avatars of the other users”; [0061] – “The shared shopping experience system 224 can also allow the users engaged in the virtual shared shopping experience to exchange messages. For example, the shared shopping experience system 224 can allow a first user to type a message. The shared shopping experience system 224 can then present that message as an overlay of the virtual store presented to each of the users who are engaged in the shared shopping experience”).
In regards to claim 8, claim 8 is directed to a system. Claim 8 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The method of Berger discloses the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Berger further discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform acts (Berger: [0122-0123]). Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claim 9, all the limitations in system claim 9 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claim 2 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
In regards to claim 10, Berger discloses the system of claim 8. Berger further discloses
wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, the acts further comprising: receiving device data from a second electronic device of a user associated with the merchant (Berger: [0035] – “the augmentation system 208 uses the geolocation of the client device 102 to identify a media overlay that includes the name of a merchant at the geolocation of the client device 102”; [0041] – “the map system 210 enables the display of user icons or avatars (e.g., stored in profile data 316) on a map to indicate a current or past location of “friends” of a user”; [0053-0054] – “present indicators on respective displays of the users who are currently engaged in the shared shopping experience that identify which users are engaged in the shared shopping experience and their current 3D positions. The indicators can be conditionally displayed on the basis of whether a client device 102 of a given user points towards a direction in 3D of another user. For example, a client device 102 of a first user can be pointed towards a field of view corresponding to a first portion of the virtual store while a second user is virtually located in a second portion of the virtual store that is 180 degrees away from the first portion…input is received from the client device 102 of the first user indicating movement through the virtual store (e.g., as the first user physically moves around the first user's environment or the first user selects an on-screen option to navigate the virtual store in a given direction, such as by swiping or tapping a given portion of the display)… determine that the current virtual position of a second user within the virtual store is intersected by the virtual surface normal. In response, the shared shopping experience system 224 displays an indicator of the second user.”; the examiner notes the user is associated with the merchant because they are shopping in the merchant space);
determining a position of a merchant avatar within the virtual space based at least in part on the device data, wherein the extended reality storefront displayed on the first electronic device includes the merchant avatar positioned at the position within the virtual space (Berger: [0055] – “the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users within the virtual store include pins. In some cases, the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users include avatars of the other users”; [0035] – “the augmentation system 208 uses the geolocation of the client device 102 to identify a media overlay that includes the name of a merchant at the geolocation of the client device 102”; [0041] – “the map system 210 enables the display of user icons or avatars (e.g., stored in profile data 316) on a map to indicate a current or past location of “friends” of a user”; [0053-0054] – “present indicators on respective displays of the users who are currently engaged in the shared shopping experience that identify which users are engaged in the shared shopping experience and their current 3D positions. The indicators can be conditionally displayed on the basis of whether a client device 102 of a given user points towards a direction in 3D of another user. For example, a client device 102 of a first user can be pointed towards a field of view corresponding to a first portion of the virtual store while a second user is virtually located in a second portion of the virtual store that is 180 degrees away from the first portion…input is received from the client device 102 of the first user indicating movement through the virtual store (e.g., as the first user physically moves around the first user's environment or the first user selects an on-screen option to navigate the virtual store in a given direction, such as by swiping or tapping a given portion of the display)… determine that the current virtual position of a second user within the virtual store is intersected by the virtual surface normal. In response, the shared shopping experience system 224 displays an indicator of the second user”; the examiner notes that “merchant avatar,” under broadest reasonable interpretation, is interpreted to be any other user avatar within the merchant store);
receiving, from the first electronic device, interaction data indicating an interaction of the customer with the merchant avatar (Berger: [0055] – “the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users within the virtual store include pins. In some cases, the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users include avatars of the other users”; [0061] – “The shared shopping experience system 224 can also allow the users engaged in the virtual shared shopping experience to exchange messages. For example, the shared shopping experience system 224 can allow a first user to type a message. The shared shopping experience system 224 can then present that message as an overlay of the virtual store presented to each of the users who are engaged in the shared shopping experience”); and
sending an indication of the interaction to the second electronic device (Berger: [0055] – “the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users within the virtual store include pins. In some cases, the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users include avatars of the other users”; [0061] – “The shared shopping experience system 224 can also allow the users engaged in the virtual shared shopping experience to exchange messages. For example, the shared shopping experience system 224 can allow a first user to type a message. The shared shopping experience system 224 can then present that message as an overlay of the virtual store presented to each of the users who are engaged in the shared shopping experience”).
In regards to claim 15, claim 8 is directed to a medium. Claim 15 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The method of Berger discloses the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Berger further discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts (Berger: [0122-0123]). Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claims 16-18, all the limitations in medium claims 16-18 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 2-4 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
In regards to claim 21, Berger discloses the medium of claim 15. Berger further discloses
wherein the digital representations are generated for use in a 3D model of the extended reality storefront displayed by the electronic device (Berger: [0062] – “generate a virtual or augmented reality storefront that includes various virtual items representing products associated with the store”; [0112] and Fig. 7A – “a virtual reality shirt corresponding to the virtual reality item 722 is displayed in a first size in a stack of virtual reality items, as shown in FIG. 7A”; [0054] – “the 3D space of the virtual store”; [0059] – “the shared shopping experience system 224 can determine that there are 30 pants available in the store inventory. In response, the shared shopping experience system 224 can display up to a maximum of 7 virtual reality items corresponding to pants in a first stack of virtual reality items”; see also Fig. 9; the examiner notes Fig. 7A and 9 depict items displayed in 3D stacks situated within the 3D virtual shopping environment).
In regards to claim 22, Berger discloses the medium of claim 21. Berger further discloses
wherein the respective positions within the virtual space for the digital representations are based at least in part on the 3D model (Berger: [0062] – “generate a virtual or augmented reality storefront that includes various virtual items representing products associated with the store”; [0112] and Fig. 7A – “a virtual reality shirt corresponding to the virtual reality item 722 is displayed in a first size in a stack of virtual reality items, as shown in FIG. 7A”; [0054] – “the 3D space of the virtual store”; [0059] – “the shared shopping experience system 224 can determine that there are 30 pants available in the store inventory. In response, the shared shopping experience system 224 can display up to a maximum of 7 virtual reality items corresponding to pants in a first stack of virtual reality items”; see also Fig. 9; the examiner notes Fig. 7A and 9 depict items displayed in 3D stacks situated within the 3D virtual shopping environment).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claim 5, 12, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger, in view of Chachek et al. (US 20200302510 A1), hereinafter Chachek.
In regards to claim 5, Berger discloses the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses
receiving, by the computing device, user input data from the electronic device, the user input data indicating a selection of a digital representation of an item among the digital representations of the items (Berger: [0059] – “detect input from a client device 102 indicating selection of the virtual reality item corresponding to the dress”; see also [0056]);
updating, by the computing device, a purchase status of the item in a datastore (Berger: [0057] – “If the second user selects to purchase the pants, the shared shopping experience system 224 can modify the display attribute in a second manner…to indicate that the second user has performed an action type to purchase the pants”; [0073-0074] – “augmentation data that may be stored within the image table…augmentation data includes augmented reality content items, overlays, image transformations, AR images, and similar terms that refer to modifications that may be applied to image data (e.g., videos or images)”); and
causing to display the digital representation of the item within the extended reality storefront in association with an indication that the item has been purchased based on the purchase status of the item (Berger: [0057] – “the shared shopping experience system 224 can present a first stack of virtual items corresponding to pants and a second stack of virtual items corresponding to shirts…If the second user selects to purchase the pants, the shared shopping experience system 224 can modify the display attribute in a second manner to display a red border around the first stack of virtual items presented on the client device 102 of the first user to indicate that the second user has performed an action type to purchase the pants”).
Berger further discloses the display associated with the customer being the browser (Berger: [0104]; [0138]),
yet Berger does not explicitly disclose causing, by the computing device, the electronic device to display in association with an indication.
However, Chachek teaches a similar virtual store method (Chachek: [0142]), including
causing, by the computing device, the electronic device to display in association with an indication (Chachek: [0139] – “generate an Augmented Reality (AR) view, of an area or region of a venue (store, mall, department within a store, or the like)…generate such additional elements and add them or overlay them onto a real-time imaging output of the venue or region. For example, the AR Element Adding Unit 134 may generate and add: …(c) an emphasis or highlighting of a particular product that is within the region of interest or the viewed image (e.g., highlighting ‘Diet Coke 1.5 liters, which you have purchased in the past!’…)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the indication display to the customer of Chachek in the method of Berger because Berger already discloses a purchase indication and Chachek is merely demonstrating that this may be provided to the purchaser. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included causing, by the computing device, the electronic device to display in association with an indication as taught by Chachek because providing purchase information is well-known and the use of it in a virtual shopping method would have provided customers an improved shopping experience (Chachek: [0005]).
In regards to claim 12, all the limitations in system claim 12 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claim 5 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
In regards to claim 19, all the limitations in medium claim 19 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claim 5 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claim 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger, in view of Singh et al. (US 20200302693 A1), hereinafter Singh, in view of Jones (US 20110004481 A1), hereinafter Jones.
In regards to claim 6, Berger discloses the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses
wherein the electronic device is a first electronic device, the computer-implemented method further comprising: determining, by the computing device, a user associated with the customer (Berger: [0055] – “the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users within the virtual store include pins. In some cases, the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users include avatars of the other users”; [0061] – “The shared shopping experience system 224 can also allow the users engaged in the virtual shared shopping experience to exchange messages. For example, the shared shopping experience system 224 can allow a first user to type a message. The shared shopping experience system 224 can then present that message as an overlay of the virtual store presented to each of the users who are engaged in the shared shopping experience”); and
sending, by the computing device, to a second electronic device of the user, a notification (Berger: [0055] – “the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users within the virtual store include pins. In some cases, the indicators of the virtual locations of the other users include avatars of the other users”; [0061] – “The shared shopping experience system 224 can also allow the users engaged in the virtual shared shopping experience to exchange messages. For example, the shared shopping experience system 224 can allow a first user to type a message. The shared shopping experience system 224 can then present that message as an overlay of the virtual store presented to each of the users who are engaged in the shared shopping experience”).
Yet Berger does not explicitly disclose a notification that the customer has entered the extended reality storefront, the notification including a link that, upon selection, causes the second electronic device to access the extended reality storefront.
However, Singh teaches a similar virtual shopping environment (Singh: [0014]), including
information comprising a link that, upon selection, causes the second electronic device to access to the extended reality storefront (Singh: [0057] – “the virtual environment generation sever 230 may provide images representing the virtual 3D model to the user device 210 (e.g., via an application, a web browser, or the like)… based on receiving a request for the 3D virtual environment (e.g., when the user…browses to a web address or uniform resource locator (URL) of a web page presenting the virtual 3D environment”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the link of Singh in the method of Berger because Berger already discloses accessing the storefront and Singh is merely demonstrating how it is accessed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included information comprising a link that, upon selection, causes the second electronic device to access to the extended reality storefront as taught by Singh because links are well-known and the use of it in a virtual shopping method would have aided a user in more accurately visualizing how a product may be used in a context that is relevant and unique to the user (Singh: [0014]).
Furthermore, Jones teaches a similar virtual sales environment (Jones: [abstract]), including
a notification that the customer has entered the extended reality storefront, the notification including (Jones: [0032] – “a connection is made with a representative who is communicatively connected, such as through a computer interface, to the video and audio feeds from the avatar-to-human communication environment…if the user has questions about purchasing a specific product, the representative would have experience with the product in question. When a representative receives the user's request on the representative's computer, the representative can begin a session and initiate communication with the user through the avatar”; [0079] – “A user entering the environment could trigger the activation of the avatar through a motion detector, through a noise detector, or through some other means. The activation would alert the representative to take control of the avatar and initiate communication with the user. Once activated, the avatar could offer product advice and perform demonstrations in response to the user's questions and requirements”; [0031] – “In the retail environment, the use of representatives in communication with avatars”; see also [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the notification of Jones in the combined method of Berger/Singh because Berger/Singh already discloses virtual environments and Jones is merely demonstrating how a merchant may be in one. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included based a notification that the customer has entered the extended reality storefront, the notification including as taught by Jones because access to sales associates are well-known and the use of it in a virtual shopping method would have ensured consistent product or services information (Jones: [0005]).
In regards to claim 13, all the limitations in system claim 13 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claim 6 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
In regards to claim 20, all the limitations in medium claim 20 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claim 6 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger, in view of Singh.
In regards to claim 7, Berger discloses the method of claim 1. Berger further discloses wherein the digital representations comprise representations of the items based at least in part on the items that are included in the catalogue data associated with the catalogue of items (Berger: [0059] – “the shared shopping experience system 224 can access an inventory of the store associated with the virtual store. The shared shopping experience system 224 can select how many virtual reality items to present based on the inventory of the store…shared shopping experience system 224 can determine that there are 6 shirts available in the store inventory. In response, the shared shopping experience system 224 can display 6 or some other quantity less than the total available shirts in a second stack of virtual reality items corresponding to the shirts”).
Yet Berger does not explicitly disclose the representations comprise two-dimensional (2D) representations of the items; and images of the items.
However, Singh teaches a similar virtual shopping method (Singh: [0014]), including
the representations comprise two-dimensional (2D) representations of the items; and images of the items (Singh: [0040] – “The product images 308 may include 2D images…of products to be included in the virtual 3D environment 322”; [0044] – “product data 312 may include a data file containing information about the products included in the virtual 3D environment 322 (e.g., products with which the user may interact and/or purchase). The product data 312 may include…thumbnail images”; see also Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the 2D images of Singh in the method of Berger because Berger already discloses selecting items and Singh is merely demonstrating how they are displayed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included the representations comprise two-dimensional (2D) representations of the items; and images of the items as taught by Singh because 2D representations are well-known and the use of it in a virtual shopping method would have aided a user in more accurately visualizing how a product may be used in a context that is relevant and unique to the user (Singh: [0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steiner et al. (US 20210224948 A1) teaches displaying items in a virtual storefront. Inventory items are displayed to a user, allowing a user to shop in a virtual shopping environment.
NPL Reference U teaches virtual reality shopping applications. User may shop in virtual environments, and interact with virtual merchant representatives. A virtual 3D shop may be replicated in their homes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights