DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed 29 December 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”) has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21, 24, 29, and 35 are currently amended.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result. A claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. MPEP § 2163.03(V). Specifically, a software-related claim must adequately describe, in sufficient detail, a computer and algorithm that achieves the claimed functionality. Id. § 2161.01(I).
With regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for “determining that the gaze is directed in a gaze direction that is within an angular range of the gesture.” Specifically, the specification fails to provide algorithms for: (1) determining a gaze direction; (2) determining an angular range of a gesture; and (3) given a gaze direction and an angular range of a gesture, calculating that the gaze direction is with the angular range of a gesture.
Additionally, with regards to the claim at issue, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for “generating, using the machine learning model, respective scores for the one or more candidate objects.”
Claims 22-28 are rejected for substantially the same reason indicated above for claim 21, at least due to their dependence on the claim.
Additionally, regarding claim 24, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for predicting interest scores corresponding to individual candidate objects.
Claims 29-34 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given above for claim 21.
Additionally, with regards to these claims, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for recognizing objects in a photograph or video.
Claims 35-40 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given above for claim 21.
Additionally, with regards to these claims, the written description fails to provide an algorithm for enabling a self-driving vehicle to drive or park itself with respect to a selected candidate object.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 may be characterized as a method for identifying an object of interest based on the intersection of a gaze direction with the angular range of a gesture. This claim has been evaluated under the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test as provided in MPEP § 2106(III).
I. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea.
Courts have defined a mental process to include both concepts that may be performed entirely in the human mind and concepts that require a human to employ a physical aid (e.g., a pen and paper or slide rule). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Id.
Mathematical concepts have been defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A).
The following limitations encompass a mental process:
“in response to a command, wherein the command does not conclusively identify a particular object of interest to which the command is directed, identifying, based at least in part on an analysis of the first data set [i.e., a gaze and gesture] and the second data set [i.e., voiced speech] …, one or more candidate objects of interest to the individual, wherein the analysis includes determining that the gaze is directed in a gaze direction that is within an angular range of the gesture, and wherein the one or more candidate objects of interest are identified by filtering out or ranking objects based at least in part on a combination of the gaze direction and the angular range of the gesture;”
“generating … respective scores for the one or more candidate objects;”
“selecting, based at least in part on one or more scores, a first selected candidate object of the identified one or more candidate objects of interest;” and
“causing an operation associated with the first selected candidate object of interest of the one or more candidate objects of interest to be performed.”
These limitations are drawn identifying an object of interest and a desired operation to be performed with the object of interest based on observing natural human behavior (i.e., physical movements and verbal communication). Such a process represents interactions that may be performed in the human mind or with a physical aid (e.g., a pen and paper).
Additionally, the limitation “determining that the gaze is directed in a gaze direction that is within an angular range of the gesture, and wherein the one or more candidate objects of interest are identified by filtering out or ranking objects based at least in part on a combination of the gaze direction and the angular range of the gesture” encompasses a mathematical concept.
II. Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements of: (1) performing the claimed process on a computing device, (2) receiving a first data set and a second data set, (3) displaying a representation of a selected candidate object or information regarding the selected candidate object in an Augmented Reality (AR) environment, and (4) using a machine learning model.
A. The invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Neither the claim nor the specification asserts that the invention improves upon the conventional functioning of a computer, conventional technology, or technological processes. Rather, the claim merely invokes a computer as a tool.
B. A computing device and a machine learning model are not particular machines.
A general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). Regarding the first and fourth elements, a “computing device” and a “machine learning model” are generic computer technologies.
C. Receiving data and displaying information are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The recitation of an insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding the second element, “receiving a first data set indicative of a first signal modality and a first direction from an individual during at least a first time interval, wherein the first data set includes at least a first signal indicative of a gaze and a second signal indicative of a gesture” and “receiving a second data set indicative of a second signal modality from the individual during at least a second time interval that overlaps at least in part with the first time interval” are insignificant pre-solution activities related to mere data gathering. Regarding the third element, the display of information in an AR environment is an insignificant post-solution activity related to mere data output.
D. Displaying information in an AR environment merely indicates a field of use or technological environment.
Limitations that merely generally link the use of an abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(h). The resulting display of information in an AR environment does not alter or affect how the underlying process of identifying the candidate objects of interest is performed. Accordingly, the display of information in an AR environment merely indicates a field of use or technological environment.
Additionally, applying generic machine learning techniques to a new environment does not create patent eligibility. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437, slip op. at 18 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). The claim does not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement in the field of machine learning. Accordingly, the limitation directed to use of a machine learning model does not make the claim patent eligible.
E. The relevant considerations indicate that the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When evaluated as a whole, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
III. Step 2B: The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Whether a claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea should be determined by: (1) identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, with respect to the relevant considerations. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As discussed above, performing the claimed process using a computing device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technology. Merely employing generic computer technology to carry out a procedure is “insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea.” See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed above, receiving data and displaying information are insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and data output. Gathering data and presenting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-1364.
As discussed above, displaying a visual representation of a selected candidate object or information regarding the selected candidate object in an Augmented Reality (AR) environment and the use of machine learning do not amount to inventive concepts. Specifically, the display of information in an AR environment is a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. See, e.g., Kim et al., US 2014/0145931 A1; Ng-Thow-Hing et al., US 2015/0062168 A1.
IV. Conclusion: Ineligible
The claim has been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 22, which depends on claim 21, is directed to storing the first data set in a buffer of a computing device. As a buffer is generic computer technology, the claim neither is integrated into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23, which depends on claim 21, is directed to specifying that the data sets may comprise one of several verbal or nonverbal signals. This limitation merely encompasses common forms of observable human behavior that may be performed as a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24, which depends on claim 21, is directed to selecting a candidate object based on a predicted interest score. This limitation encompasses a mental process and/or mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25, which depends on claim 21, is directed to specifying that the command may be determined based on an analysis of speech, touch screen input, or sign language. This limitation merely encompasses common forms of human behavior that may be observed as part of a mental process and/or method of organizing human activity. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 26, which depends on claim 21, is directed to further specifying the operation associated with the candidate object of interest. This limitation encompasses indicating a name and translating words or symbols, which may be performed as a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 27, which depends on claim 21, is directed to specifying that the command may be a demonstrative pronoun or an adverb of relative place. This limitation merely encompasses common parts of speech that may be observed as part of a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 28, which depends on claim 21, is directed to the use of remote computing resources. As remote computing resources are generic computer technologies, the claim neither is integrated into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 29 is directed to a system that implements the method for identifying an object of interest based on the intersection of a gaze direction with the angular range of a gesture recited in claim 21. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014).
Additionally, in place of displaying information in an AR environment, the claim recites the additional elements of: (1) taking a photograph/video of a selected candidate object with a camera, (2) applying an object recognition algorithm to the photograph/video, and (3) transmitting the photograph/video. First, a camera is generic computer technology. Second, the application of an object recognition algorithm is an insignificant post-solution activity and is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Third, the capture and transmission of a photograph/video is insignificant post-solution activity related to mere data output and is a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. See, e.g., Olleon et al., US 2013/000811 A1. Finally, when evaluated as a whole, the additional elements generally link the use of an abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment since they do not alter or affect how the underlying process of identifying the candidate objects of interest is performed. Accordingly, the claim neither is integrated into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 30, which depends on claim 29, is directed to observing that direction information is unavailable during a time period. This limitation may be performed as a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 31, which depends on claim 29, is directed to performing the data analysis processes in parallel. Mental processes/mathematical concepts may be performed in parallel. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 32, which depends on claim 29, is directed to selecting a candidate object based on a predicted interest score. This limitation encompasses a mental process and/or mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 33, which depends on claim 29, is directed to identifying candidate objects of interests based on object recognition performed on still or video imagery. This limitation may be performed as a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 34, which depends on claim 29, is directed to identifying candidate objects of interests using, e.g., a data source accessible via the internet. As a data source accessible via the internet is generic computer technology, the claim neither is integrated into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 is directed to instructions stored in a medium that implement the method recited in claim 21. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014).
Additionally, in place of displaying information in an AR environment, the claim recites driving or parking a self-driving vehicle with respect to a selected candidate object. The driving or parking of a self-driving vehicle is a post-solution activity. Additionally, this limitation generally links the use of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment since it does not alter or affect how the underlying process of identifying the candidate objects of interest is performed. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the operation of a self-driving vehicle with respect to a selected object does not amount to an inventive concept since it is a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. See, e.g., Volkswagen AG, DE 10045616 A1.
Claim 36, which depends on claim 35, is directed to selecting an object in a VR or AR environment. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 37, which depends on claim 35, is directed to analyzing data obtained from a second individual. This limitation may be performed as a mental process and/or mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 38, which depends on claim 35, is directed to the execution of a machine learning algorithm. This limitation is merely a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, the use of a machine learning algorithm to perform a function is the application of generic computer technology. Accordingly, the claim neither is integrated into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 39, which depends on claim 35, is directed to identifying candidate objects of interests using observations from a person’s external environment. This limitation may be performed as a mental process and/or mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 40, which depends on claim 35, is directed to identifying candidate objects of interests based on geographical context, cultural context, conversation context, or personal profile information. This limitation may be performed as a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
I. § 112(f): Claim Interpretation
The interpretation of claims 29-34 as invoking a § 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 29.
II. § 112(a): Written Description Requirement
Applicant has not substantively responded to the written description rejections. Rather, Applicant merely cites 6 different paragraphs without offering any explanation. Reply 10. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
III. § 101: Subject Matter Eligibility
Regarding claims 21-40, Applicant alleges that use of an ML model to analyze data constitutes and improvement in automated driving technology. Reply 11. Applicant provides no evidentiary support for this allegation. It is noted that claims 21-34 contain no mention of automated driving technology.
The driving or parking of a self-driving vehicle is a post-solution activity merely serves to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment since it does not alter or affect how the underlying process of identifying the candidate objects of interest is performed. Additionally, the operation of a self-driving vehicle with respect to a selected object does not amount to an inventive concept since it is a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. See, e.g., Volkswagen AG, DE 10045616 A1. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additionally, applying generic machine learning techniques to a new environment does not create patent eligibility. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437, slip op. at 18 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). The claim does not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement in the field of machine learning. Accordingly, the limitations directed to use of a machine learning model do not make the claims patent eligible.
Accordingly, Applicant’s allegation is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171