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 .
1. Claims 1-20 filed 06/07/2025 are pending for examination.
2. Continuity: This application filed 06/27/2025 is a Continuation of 17971818, filed 10/24/2022, now U.S. Patent # 12373867 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein 17971818 is a Continuation of 16129439, filed 09/12/2018, now U.S. Patent # 11509653 and having 2 RCE-type filing therein 16129439 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62557342, filed 09/12/2017.
Double Patenting
3. 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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12373867, hereinafter Patent' 867. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of Patent' 867, as is evident from the comparison provided below, for example, claim 1 of the Patent'867 and claim 1 of the instant application, wherein all the limitations [highlighted] of claim 1 of the instant application are covered by the underlined limitations of the claim 1 of the Patent' 867
Claim 1 of Patent'867:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, by an augmented reality program installed at an end-user computing device of an end user, a target image, wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase;
determining, by the augmented reality program, that the target image comprises the target information; and
based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information:
presenting, by the augmented reality program and on a display of the end-user computing device, a three-dimensional projection of the consumer product and an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product after sharing the target image through at least one social media platform;
confirming, by the augmented reality program, that the end-user has shared the target image;
sending, by the end-user computing device and via a network, an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; and,
granting, by the end-user computing device, access to the end-user to purchase the product based upon the end-user interacting with the three-dimensional projection of the consumer product.
Claim 1 of the instant application:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, by an augmented reality program installed at an end-user computing device of an end user, a target image, wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase;
determining, by the augmented reality program, that the target image comprises the target information; and
based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information:
presenting, by the augmented reality program and on a display of the end-user computing device, a three-dimensional projection of the consumer product and an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product;
sending, by the end-user computing device and via a network, an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; and,
granting, by the end-user computing device, access to the end-user to purchase the product.
Examiner has reviewed and compared the limitations of the claims 2-6, 8-12 of the instant application depending from claim 1 with the limitations of the claims 2-6, 8-12 of the patent '867 and they are similar. Claim 7 recites the limitations, " wherein the access is granted to the end-user based on the end-user touching a user interface", which are not disclosed in the claims of the patent'867, but since the claim 1 already recites granting access to the end-user to purchase the product on the user's device, it would be obvious to touch the user interface of the user device to indicate a purchasing action.
The limitations of the other two independent claims 13 and 20 and those of dependent claims 14-19 of the instant application are similar to the limitations of claim 1, and the 2-3, 5, 7-9 of the instant application, they are analyzed on the same basis as rejected on the ground of ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12373867, hereinafter Patent' 867.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-12, and 20 are to a process comprising a series of steps, clams 13-19 to a device, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
(i) obtaining, by an augmented reality program installed at an end-user computing device of an end user, a target image, wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase;
(ii) determining, by the augmented reality program, that the target image comprises the target information; and
(iii) based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information:
(a) presenting, by the augmented reality program and on a display of the end-user computing device, a three-dimensional projection of the consumer product and an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product;
(b)sending, by the end-user computing device and via a network, an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; and,
(c) granting, by the end-user computing device, access to the end-user to purchase the product.
Obtaining a target image, wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase; determining that the target image comprises the target information; and based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information: presenting an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; sending an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; and, granting access to the end-user to purchase the product.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, " obtaining a target image, wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase; determining that the target image comprises the target information; and based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information: presenting an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; sending an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; and, granting access to the end-user to purchase the product", under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to a commercial activity of allowing a buyer to purchase a product identified from a received image and after determining that the buyer is eligible to purchase that item. Thus, claim1 and its dependent claims 2-12 fall within "Certain Methods of Organizing human activity" groupings of abstract ideas.
The highlighted limitations comprising, " determining that the target image comprises the target information", as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the augmented reality program”. That is, other than reciting “by the augmented reality program” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the t augmented reality program” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at an image collected/obtained and forming a simple judgement as what target information it includes. The mere nominal recitation of by the augmented reality program does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim1 and its dependent claims 2-12 recite a mental process.
If a claim that includes two or more abstract ideas groupings per Step 2A, Prong One, as per MPEP 2106.04, subsection IIB, under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations of claim 1 recite certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas and mental process grouping of abstract ideas, which are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations as discussed for the analysis of claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis reciting abstract idea.
Thus, claim 1 with its dependent claims 2-12, claim 13 with its dependent claims 14-19, and claim 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer device with an augmented reality program implementing the steps: (i) obtaining, by an augmented reality program installed at an end-user computing device of an end user, a target image, wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase; (ii) determining, by the augmented reality program, that the target image comprises the target information; and (iii) based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information: (a) presenting, by the augmented reality program and on a display of the end-user computing device, a three-dimensional projection of the consumer product and an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; (b)sending, by the end-user computing device and via a network, an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; and, ( c ) granting, by the end-user computing device, access to the end-user to purchase the product.
The additional elements, "(i) obtaining, by an augmented reality program installed at an end-user computing device of an end user, a target image, wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase; iii) based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information (a) presenting, by the augmented reality program and on a display of the end-user computing device, a three-dimensional projection of the consumer product and an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; (b)sending, by the end-user computing device and via a network, an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product", are mere data gathering and displaying/output/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and displaying/output/transmitting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and displaying/output/transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, these limitations (are recited as being performed by a computer including an automated reality program which is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In limitations "(ii) determining, by the augmented reality program, that the target image comprises the target information", the computer congaing an augmented reality program is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations " iii (c granting, by the end-user computing device, access to the end-user to purchase the product.", is a mere genetic computer function of letting a user to access a website to make purchases. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Accordingly, even when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Since the other two independent claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis as claim 1 being directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 12 recite non-functional subject matter. Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, recite subject matter expanding the scope of the limitations recited in the base claim 1 including gathering data, displaying/output/transmitting data which as analyzed for claim 1 are non-significant extra-solution activity being performed by generic computer. Claim 6 also recites overlaying an image of a product on the target image, claim 7 recites touching user interface to make a purchase, claims 9-10 recite obtaining a target image through a social media account, such as Facebook, what's app, etc. and the target image via the social media account of the end user, and claim 11 recites navigating an online store where the consumer product is available for purchase by the end user, wherein all these functions being performed by generic computer devices do not purport to improve computer capabilities or improve an existing technology. All the additional elements of dependent claims, as discussed, individually or in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, dependent claims 2-12 similar to their base claim are directed to an abstract idea. Since dependent claims 14-19 from base claim 13 recite similar limitations as the limitations of the dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 discussed above, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 1-20 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic- computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic- computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic- computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As per MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element or elements is/are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity in step 2A should be re-evaluated in step 2B. Here the steps of obtaining/receiving data, presenting/displaying data, sending/transmitting data, were considered are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity activities in step 2A and thus they are re-evaluated in step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The use of augmented reality concept was widely used at the time of the effective filing date of the Application, and as drafted in claim 1 amounts to mere well-understood, conventional and routine activity, see Reference US 2014/0178029 A1, para 0005 as mere evidence, “Augmented reality has been widely used in various fields of application such as the entertainment field and the TV broadcast industry. A very common example that no one can miss is the TV weather broadcast where the forecaster appears in front of a weather chart that keeps changing naturally. AR technology allows a person to see or feel a real world integrated with computer-generated virtual world. The "real world" is the environment that a user can see, feel, hear, taste, or smell using the user's own senses, while the "virtual world" is a computer-generated environment stored in a storage medium and presented as an overlay of image, audio, video, or text information. Most ARs require a marker system to associate the virtual world to the real world. But AR content can also be triggered either manually when a live target object is positioned within video camera's field of view, or automatically by means of face or form recognition, or by means of one or more gestures.”.
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faris et al. [US 20150205894 A1], hereinafter Faris cited in the parent application 17971818, now US Patent# 12373867 and in the IDS filed 08/7/2025 in view of Itwaru [US 2013/0124413 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Faris teaches a method comprising all the following steps:
obtaining, by an augmented reality program installed at an end-user computing device of an end user, a target image, wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase; determining, by the augmented reality program, that the target image comprises the target information; and based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information: presenting, by the augmented reality program and on a display of the end-user computing device, an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; and sending, by the end-user computing device and via a network, an indication that the end user is eligible to purchase the product [See paras 0105, 0120, 0146, 0148, and 0199:
[0105] …… the system is configured to leverage image recognition to present an augmented reality "pop-up" store in physical environments. ……. a mobile computing device with an integrated camera may be configured to detect one or more fiducials, and present a 2D or 3D representation of select products for sale near the fiducial on to the display of the mobile computing device. The system may be configured to receive information from the mobile computing device and determine which products will be displayed to the user based on the user's social graph (described below), GPS coordinates, and time of to -day. [0120] …… product data includes hero product data. In this embodiment, hero product data may include product characteristics …., a hero product may be any product or service which is offered to a limited subset of users. [0146] FIG. 3A illustrates an example navigational diagram of scavenger mode. The application may register a user at user registration 302. The user may register at any type of device with web access, including a laptop computer or a cell phone. ……... When a user registers on an application, the application displays an introduction to VirginMega 306 and may link to web content 312 or Google Maps 310 relating to VirginMega and "FlagTag" locations. …….. FlagTags, as described further below, are fiducials that may be scanned to unlock a hero product 314. A user may travel to a FlagTag location and scan it to join a line. Once the FlagTag is scanned, the application may generate augmented reality content near the FlagTag. In some examples, scanning the FlagTag automatically allows a user to purchase an item within a time frame (at 318). ……In one example, to register for a line, users may have to complete a "stampede mission." A stampede mission is a mission used by the application to confirm that the registrants are humans and not bots trying to fill the line. In current offerings, bots may overload a website to buy tickets automatically via different generated user accounts. The application improves on those offerings by preventing nonhuman users from buying the hero products. [0148] Once a time period for the line ends, a communication (e.g., an email) 338 is sent to the users in the line indicating if they won (e.g., they reached the top part of the line eligible for the hero product) 340 and may purchase the hero product 314 or if they lost (e.g., they did not reach the top percentage of the line) 344 and may receive a mega discount 346 for another product or line. The mega discount 346 may include jumps for another line or prioritized entry for another line. If the user won, the application may process a payment 342 and exchange the payment for the hero product. [0199] …… a mobile client may implement a user interface such as the user interface illustrated in FIG. 64. As shown in FIG. 64, when executing according to this embodiment, the mobile client provides a user interface that includes a bodega element 6400. In this embodiment, the mobile client may receive input (e.g., a tap) selecting the bodega element 6400. In response to receiving input selecting the bodega element 6400, the mobile client enters boutique mode and provides users with the ability to purchase a variety of products. These products may include hero products and non-hero products (e.g., satellite products).
The above excerpts from Faris suggest obtaining a target image, which is captured by the mobile device of the user related to a consumer product but cannot be purchased by the user till , wherein the target image comprises target information indicating a consumer product that the end user is not yet eligible to purchase, wherein the target image corresponds to fiducial and when the fiducial is scanned then this target information is conveyed to the system which unlocks a hero product, which is limited to those people who scan the fiducial. Once the system determines that the fiducial is scanned then the system allows the user to purchase the “hero product” in a limited time and all this process is done via augmented reality program [see paras 0146, 0234, 0236 and Figs 10 62A-62B, 63a-63 B]; determining that the target image comprises the target information; and based at least on the determining that the target image comprises the target information: presenting on a display of the end-user, an indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product; and sending an indication that the end user is eligible to purchase the product.
Ferris also teaches presenting a three -dimensional projection of the consumer product [See Para 0240, “product information may be displayed next to the FlagTag on a display. HTML standards may be used with multimedia components such as 3D models and transparent videos of unlocked products to blend with the environment and offer interaction capabilities.
Though Ferris teaches providing an opportunity to purchase the hero product when qualifies [see para 0184, and 0188], but fails to teach explicitly granting, by the end user computing device, access to the end-user to purchase the product. Itwaru, in the same field of e-commerce and making purchases teaches granting, by the end user computing device, access to the end-user to purchase the product [See Itwaru paras 0036 and 0046, " [0036] …… the general trend in the technology industry has been to develop technologies that allow a Consumer to browse and shop from websites via his/her mobile device. A standard e-commerce purchase allows a Consumer to use a personal computer to access the Internet, browse to a website, shop online, fill out any forms that the merchant needs to complete the transaction and finally pay for the purchase online. The embodiments disclosed herein make a mobile device complementary to a standard e-commerce purchase. …….[0046] One example of the consumer environment 4 is where the computer device 12 receives a network message 54 containing an image of the OMRI 200 or the product code data 3 that is displayed on the user interface 104 (see FIG. 6) of the computer device 12. In this example, the network message 54 can be an order screen sent from a merchant order interface 8 (of a merchant website) operated by the merchant computer device 17. The consumer 18 can select the OMRI 200 or the product code data 3 image on their user interface 104 using a cursor or touch screen functionality of the computer device 12 and then use the transaction application 113 to coordinate subsequent transaction 5 processing via the processing system 80 of the transaction service 20 and/or via merchant interface 8 of the merchant device 17. ". Therefore, in view of the teachings of Itwaru it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferris in the same field of e-commerce making a purchase of a product identified from a received target image target by granting, by the end user computing device, access to the end-user to purchase the product which can be done using a cursor or touching the user interface /screen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Faris teaches that method of claim 1, wherein the target information of the target image is a unique identification number [See para 0234, which describes that the information of fiducial [target image] in the augmented reality environment relates to a unique machine-readable code such as a QR code or a machine-readable marker which represents a unique identification number.
Regarding clam 3, Faris teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the target image comprises the target information comprises performing an image recognition of the target image, see Faris para 0236, “FIG. 10 depicts one example of a device configured to display an augmented reality product offering 1000. In the embodiment shown, a mobile device 1002 is configured to recognize a machine-readable element within a FlagTag 1004 in view of the mobile device's integrated camera. Subsequent to detection of the FlagTag, the mobile device is configured to display a product offering 1006 with a "buy" button 1008 overlaying the captured frames within the field of view of the camera.”. As discussed for claim 1 para 015 disclosed detecting a fiducial, which is a FlagTag which when scanned and the scanned image is recognized by the system to unlock the asset which is a “hero product” so that the user can purchase the same.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations, “The method of claim 3, wherein the performing the image recognition comprises: sending, by the end-user computing device via the network and to a remote computing device, the target image; and receiving, by the end-user computing device via the network and from the remote computing device, an indication that the target image has been recognized”, are already discussed and covered in the analysis of claims 1 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations, “ The method of claim 1, further comprising: prompting, by the augmented reality program, the user to provide user input associated with the target image; and receiving, by the augmented reality program, the user input; wherein the presenting the indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product is further based on the receiving the user input.”, are already covered and discussed in the analysis of claim 1, see Faris para 0105 wherein the user’s mobile device presenting the detected and scanned image of Fiducial represents the user’s input which unlocks the hero product so that it can be purchased by the user “ [105} a mobile computing device with an integrated camera may be configured to detect one or more fiducials, and present a 2D or 3D representation of select products for sale near the fiducial on to the display of the mobile computing device. The system may be configured to receive information from the mobile computing device and determine which products will be displayed to the user based on the user's social graph (described below), GPS coordinates, and time of today.”
Regarding claim 6, Faris teaches that the method of claim 1 wherein the presenting the indication that the end-user is eligible to purchase the consumer product comprises overlaying, on the target image, an image of the consumer product [See para 0236, “[0236] FIG. 10 depicts one example of a device configured to display an augmented reality product offering 1000. In the embodiment shown, a mobile device 1002 is configured to recognize a machine-readable element within a FlagTag 1004 in view of the mobile device's integrated camera. Subsequent to detection of the FlagTag, the mobile device is configured to display a product offering 1006 with a "buy" button 1008 overlaying the captured frames within the field of view of the camera.”
Regarding claim 7, the limitations, " that the method of claim 1, wherein the access is granted to the end-user based on the end-user touching a user interface", are already covered in view of the combined teachings of Faris in view of Itwaru [See Itwaru paras: 0036 and 0046]
Regarding claim 8, the limitations, “the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the target image comprises obtaining, via an imaging device of the end-user computing device, the target image” are already covered in the analysis of claim 1, see Faris para 0105 where the mobile device includes an integrated camera an imaging device.
Regarding claim 9-10, Faris teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the target image comprises obtaining, via a social media account of another user, the target image, and sharing, by the end-user computing device, the target image via a social media account of the end user [See paras 0122 and 0332 which disclose using users’ social media accounts and the information such as the target image which includes scanned image of a fiducial/FlagTag can be shared with the friends of the user through his social media account. .
Regarding claim 11, Faris teaches that the method of claim 1, further comprising navigating, by the end-user computing device, to an online store where the consumer product is available for purchase by the end user [See para 0234, “the eCommerce system 100 may present "popup" stores in augmented reality. In one embodiment, a machine-readable fiducial (e.g., a QR code, or a machine-readable marker) may be embedded in a website, store display, or poster. These machine-readable fiducials, and the images in which they reside, may be referred to herein as "FlagTags." As referred to herein, a FlagTag includes an image that will unlock access to (e.g., viewing of) products or content augmented to the environment from physical or digital spaces”.
Regarding claim 12, Faris teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the target image depicts a tangible object such as an event ticket, see para 0098.
Regarding claims 13-19, their limitations are similar to the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and therefore are analyzed and rejected as being unpatentable over Faris in view of Itwaru based on same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, its limitations are covered in the analysis of claim 1, and therefore is rejected as being unpatentable over Faris in view of Itwaru based on same rationale.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Spivack [US Patent# US 10, 878, 636 B2; see claim 1 ] describes a system and method for selecting targets in an augmented reality environment , wherein a device having touch sensitive display and a camera displays images, being captured via the camera, in an augmented reality user interface, detect presence of one or more physical objects in the images being captured in the augmented reality user interface, obtain identifying information associated with the one or more physical objects present in the images being captured in the augmented reality user interface, enables a user via his mobile device selecting a target from the one or more physical objects present in the selected area, display information for conducting a transaction of the product, wherein the displayed information comprises information regarding the product and another similar product relating to the product.
Foreign reference:
(ii) WO 2017104666 A1 describes [under the head, " Description of embodiments"] that the augmented reality program determines if any of the recognition target images is included in the captured display image by comparing a large number of previously stored recognition target images with the captured display image and If it is determined that the recognition target image is included, the augmented reality image corresponding to the recognition target image is superimposed on the captured display image, Fig.122 displays that a receiving device 1640 may further display a purchase site for the product displayed in the image.
(iii) M. Yuan, I. R. Khan, F. Farbiz, S. Yao, A. Niswar and M. -H. Foo, "A Mixed Reality Virtual Clothes Try-On System," in IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1958-1968, Dec. 2013, retrieved from IP. Com on07/31/2026 describes augmented reality improving marketing residences by using camera a tool to capture images of the surroundings to produce a 3D object that is used as to promote improving marketing residence and thereby enabling prospective buyers to get the information more interactive with real look 3D objects eliminating the need for prospective buyers to come to the location of the house to see a model home.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Maria-Teresa 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights