DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 03 December 2025.
Claims 1, 9, 13, 17, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Eligible Subject Matter
Claim 18 recites eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101, and the claims would be eligible if the claim language were to be incorporated into the independent claims rejected in the Office Action below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the remaining 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
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 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-8 & 19 are directed to a device, claims 9-16 & 20 are directed to a method, and claim 17 is directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of displaying merchandise items within a shopping environment. Specifically, representative claim 9 recites the abstract idea of:
retrieving merchandise information from a plurality of stores;
generating a user-specific shopping environment based on user-submitted preference settings, the user-specific shopping environment including a user displaying items representing physical items according to the retrieved merchandise information;
enabling a user to select items from the shopping environment and associating each item with the corresponding store; and
generating an avatar of the user according to a set of user appearance data, the avatar being positioned withing the shopping environment; and
updating the avatar of the user to display selected merchandise items within the shopping environment.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 9 recites the abstract idea of displaying merchandise items within a shopping environment, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 9 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite retrieving merchandise information from a plurality of stores, generating a user-specific shopping environment based on user-submitted preferences, where the environment includes a user displaying items that represent physical items according to the retrieved merchandise information, enabling a user to select the items from the shopping environment and associating the item with the corresponding store, generating an avatar of the user according to appearance data of the user, positioning the avatar in the shopping environment, and updating the avatar to display selected merchandise items within the shopping environment, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 9 includes additional elements: a computer, virtual shopping environment, online stores, a rendering engine using spatial data models, embedding interfaces manipulatable, virtual items, and a real-time rendering engine.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 9 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., a purchase order for at least one selected item) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a computer, virtual shopping environment, online stores, a rendering engine using spatial data models, embedding interfaces manipulatable, virtual items, and a real-time rendering engine, recited in independent claim 9 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 9 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 9 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 9 is ineligible.
Independent claims 1 and 17 are similar in nature to representative claim 9 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 9. It is noted that in independent claim 1 includes the additional elements of an application, a computing device, a store manager module, an environment generator, system logs, using spatial data models, a cart manager module, and an avatar generator, and independent claim 17 includes the additional element of a user computing device configured to display, a remote application server in communication with the user computing device, environment generator module, avatar generator module, and a cart manager module. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of claimed additional elements recited in claims 1 and 17, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 1 and 17 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 1 and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim1 and 17, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 1 and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 &19, 10-16 & 20, depending from claims 1 and 9 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims 2-8, 19, 10-16, and 20. The claims of 2-8, 19, 10-16, and 20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of in-app service module (claim 7), and in-app services (claim 7 & 15). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 7 and 15 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 7 and 15, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8, 19, 10-14, 16, and 20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-8 & 19 and 10-16 & 20 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
In claim 1: an environment generator comprising a rendering engine configure to generate a user-specific virtual shopper environment including embedding interfaces manipulatable by a user based on user-submitted preference settings stored in system logs or preference settings using spatial data models, the virtual shopping environment displaying virtual items representing physical items according to merchandise information received via the store manager module
In claim 9: generating a user-specific virtual shopping environment based on user-submitted preference settings at a rendering engine using spatial data models, the user-specific virtual shopping environment including embedding interfaces manipulatable by a user displaying virtual items representing physical items according to the retrieved merchandise information
In claim 17: generating the virtual shopping environment generator module based on user-submitted preference settings, the virtual shopping environment displaying virtual items representing physical items according to the merchandise information
The most apposite prior art of record includes Denham, G. (PGP No. US 2016/0292966 A1), in view of Varma, A. (PGP No. US 2020/0082459 A1), Acharya, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2023/0069541 A1), and Ellison D. (PGP No. US 2025/0022221 A1), to teach a virtual shopping application.
The reference of Denham discloses the shopping application for a virtual shopping experience for users (Denham, paragraph [0053]). Denham further describes that the system includes an environment module that communicates with the system to provide the actual virtual environment for shopping, providing a plurality of items for sale that a user can purchase, and where the virtual environment is created to represent store stores for purchasing the items (Denham, paragraphs [0070], [0079]). The reference includes details of a user account module that sets the preferences for user shopping based on user input, and also allows for merchants to create the storefronts for shopping within the environment, such as the type of genre and category of the store that they will provide for shoppers (Denham, paragraphs [0071], [0079]). Denham also includes the ability for a shopper to purchase the selected items from specific storefronts within the environment by providing a purchase module that facilitates transactions (Denham, paragraphs [0070], [0073]), and further provides a custom created avatar for the user, so that the avatar can navigate the shopping environment and interact with the storefronts and the available items for purchase (Denham, paragraphs [0055], [0057]).
Next, the reference of Varma is relied upon to merely demonstrate that when a purchase is made, the service computing system can communicate a purchase order that corresponds to the specific merchant selling the goods or services (Varma, paragraph [0025]).
The reference of Acharya is relied upon to describe a system that uses a picture of a user to generate an avatar so that the avatar created can try on clothing and more accurately demonstrate what the user looks like in the clothing, such as providing details of the avatar corresponding to the picture of the user showing their facial features, hair, and other features of the user (Acharya, paragraph [0080]). The avatar created in Acharya also can visit a virtual closet so that the user is provided with recommendations of clothing that they can try on or purchase, where the system can update the avatar information based on a vendor that is chosen (Acharya, see: paragraphs [0030], [0044]).
The reference of Ellison describes a system for facilitating interactions of a digital avatar, where the avatars can be used to mimic user behavior by utilizing AI to learn behaviors and personality traits of the over time (Ellison, see: at least the Abstract).
Although Denham, Varma, Acharya, and Ellison describe these features, the references in combination, do not teach or describe the allowable features indicated above. The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Virtual Store Platform Obsess Introduces First-of-Its-Kind Customer Avatar Technology, published on CISION PRWeb website (2022), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Virtual’, describes a virtual application utilizing user created avatars that represents the user/shopper with the ability to create the avatars in a browser-based virtual store environment, where the avatar is able to try on clothing, makeup, socialize with friends. Although ‘Virtual’ describes such features, the NPL does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, and in light of the Applicant’s amendments to claim 13, the objection to the claim has been withdrawn.
With respect to the provisional double patenting rejection regarding co-pending application (No. 19/236,026), and in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the instant claims, the two applications are no longer co-extensive, and therefore the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 03 December 2025, have been fully considered and the Examiner agrees in part. Particularly, claim 18 now recites eligible subject matter, and the remaining claims would be eligible of the independent claims were amended to include the eligible subject matter of claim 18.
However, in response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 8-9 of the remarks stating that “the claims no longer recite a method for organizing human behavior” and “It is respectfully submitted that, as amended, the claims do not recite an abstract idea, as the structure and method steps of the claim cannot be practically performed in the manner claimed with a human mind”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims, even when considering the amendments, are still directed to an abstract idea. Although the step of transmitting a purchase order for at least one selected item to the corresponding online store, has been removed from the claims, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea of displaying the selected merchandise items within a shopping environment. The abstract idea falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, as the claims are directly related to sales activities or behaviors since the claims specifically recite the steps of retrieving merchandise information from a plurality of stores, generating a user-specific shopping environment based on user-submitted preferences, where the environment includes a user displaying items that represent physical items according to the retrieved merchandise information, enabling a user to select the items from the shopping environment and associating the item with the corresponding store, generating an avatar of the user according to appearance data of the user, positioning the avatar in the shopping environment, and updating the avatar to display selected merchandise items within the shopping environment. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea and fall into the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity such as sales activities or behaviors.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 9 of the remarks stating that “it is respectfully submitted that the claims each represent a practical implementation of any such abstract idea,” and “the environment generator and the avatar generator collectively provide an improved virtual environment for e-commerce, allowing a user to browse items from multiple third-party vendors in a manner mimicking the real-world experience of browsing, improving the user experience in a manner analogous to the user interface in Core Wireless,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not reflect a technical improvement. The claims, even as amended, do not recite the additional elements in a manner that would be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they are still recited in a generic manner, and are not giving technical detail that would be required to integrate the abstract idea. The additional elements in this case, are being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computer and computing components. Further, the MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as a computer, virtual shopping environment, online stores, a rendering engine using spatial data models, embedding interfaces manipulatable, virtual items, and a real-time rendering engine, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of displaying the selected merchandise items within the shopping environment. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improved display of the merchandise items selected within the shopping environment, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve the providing of the display of selected merchandise items within a shopping environment, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite specific technological improvements, and therefore the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 03 December 2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the 103 rejection has been withdrawn for reasons indicated in the Office Action above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688