DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 12/28/2021 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
The following is a non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
a. Claims 1, 11, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36 are amended
b. Claims 3, 5, 13, 15, 21-23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-35 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20, 24, 28, 32, 36 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20, 24, 28, 32, 36 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Per Step 1 and Step 2A of the two-step eligibility analysis, independent Claim 1 and Claim 11 and the therefrom dependent claims are directed respectively to a computer implemented method and to a system. Thus, on its face, each such independent claim and the therefrom dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
However, Claim 1, (which is repeated in Claim 11) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: in response to displaying the user-specific image in the virtual environment via the object collecting, in real-time, user engagement information in the virtual environment, wherein collecting user engagement information comprises a pixel sampling operation comprising: capturing every rendered frame in a field of view of the user within the virtual environment that includes the user-specific image; comparing a displayed version of the user-specific image captured in the rendered frame with an original version of the user-specific image stored in the remote database; categorizing each pixel of the user-specific image; comparing each pixel with a pixel in the original version; determining the visibility of the user-specific image in the rendered frames.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations mentally or manually, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or manually by a human.
For example, but for reciting computing elements language, “collecting, in real-time, user engagement information in the virtual environment”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually collecting information.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “capturing every rendered frame in a field of view of the user within the virtual environment that includes the user-specific image”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually capturing an image, like briefly peeking at an object/landscape/image.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “comparing a displayed version of the user-specific image captured in the rendered frame with an original”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually comparing two related images.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “categorizing each pixel of the user-specific image”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually grouping the pixels.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “comparing each pixel with a pixel in the original version”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually performing a comparison.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “determining the visibility of the user-specific image in the rendered frames”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually determining a degree of visibility.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, (A) remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: providing an object embedded in a virtual environment in which a user has a presence as an avatar; determining, via the object, whether a digital trigger is activated in the virtual environment by the avatar of the user; selecting user-information stored in the remote database; causing the selected user-specific image to be displayed, i.e. displaying; inverting the in-camera perspective of each rendered frame; performing the de-lighting of the flattened on-screen version of the user-specific image;
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent receipt, transmission and general computation claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Additional remaining claim elements are: the object; the remote server; the user-specific material. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(C) Finally, recited computing elements, i.e. a system are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because: (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
(A) Step 2B of the eligibility analysis for the independent claims concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: providing an object embedded in a virtual environment in which a user has a presence as an avatar; determining, via the object, whether a digital trigger is activated in the virtual environment by the avatar of the user; selecting user-information stored in the remote database; causing the selected user-specific image to be displayed, i.e. displaying; inverting the in-camera perspective of each rendered frame; performing the de-lighting of the flattened on-screen version of the user-specific image;
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent receipt, transmission and general computation claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Furthermore, additional remaining elements of the independent claims contain descriptive limitations explaining the nature, structure and/or content of: the object; the remote server; the user-specific material. However, these claim elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
(C) Finally, the recited computing elements of the independent claims are: a system. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to significantly more, to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.
Dependent Claim 7 (which is repeated in Claim 17) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: tracking and recording one or more interactions of the avatar of the user with the object. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” “electronic recordkeeping”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 9 (which is repeated in Claim 19) is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: uploading and displaying the personal content. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 24, 28 (which are repeated in Claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 32, 36 respectively) are not directed to any abstract ideas and are not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims provide further descriptive limitations of elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the one or more digital triggers; the qualification of the user engagement; the object; the virtual environment; the avatar; the computer game; the activation zone; the virtual environment; the user-specific material; the first module; the second module; the third module. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20, 24, 28, 32, 36 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160293133 A1 2016-10-06 56 DUTT; RAJEEV SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR GENERATING INTERACTIVE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS Systems and methods for creating entities that operate within a virtual environment, where in some embodiments the entities are substantially autonomous in the sense that they are capable of communications and interactions with the environment and other entities. In some embodiments, the entities may be capable of interacting with an environment other than the one in which they were created and originally configured. In some embodiments, the entities may engage in interactions with other entities that operate to enable changes in behavior of one or both of the entities.
US 20070242880 A1 2007-10-18 32 Stebbings; David W. System and method for the identification of motional media of widely varying picture content. One or more embodiments of the present invention is directed to a system and method that identifies motional media content from the actual initially unknown program under review. Embodiments of the present invention identifies the content by searching a database to derive the relevant information about the owner, copyright holder and other pertinent facts such as copy and play permissions. It further provides methods for deriving the frame or picture count and time between shot or scene changes, the sequence of measurements or vectors having been already established from an original master or copy is provided. Embodiments of the present invention identifies pictures of widely varying brightness, rapid movement, or flicker that could cause errors in the detection of cuts, particularly for establishing the identity of a low-quality sources. Methods, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, improve the operation of the system for these types of media. A system according to one or more embodiments of the present invention can be implemented with video or audio channels that do not include any information. A method according to one or more embodiment of the present invention is extremely robust against attempts at circumvention.
US 20060155615 A1 2006-07-13 22 Loo; Siang L. et al. Object placement within computer generated multidimensional environments. Embodiments of the present invention relate to the fields data processing and commercial communication within virtual multidimensional environments. More specifically, embodiments of the present invention relate to methods and apparatus for optimizing placement of objects in a computer-generated multidimensional environment and/or the monitoring and collecting of data regarding relative efficacy of each object placed within the virtual multidimensional environment; and their applications to commercial communication.
US 20130126713 A1 2013-05-23 64 Haas; Harald et al. COMMUNICATION APPARATUS AND METHOD A detection system for use with a communications system and an associated communication systems, methods, portable electronics devices and geolocation and/or reporting devices, the detection system having at least one radiation detector for receiving a radiation signal, wherein the at least one radiation detector includes a plurality of sensing elements, and the detection system is configured to detect the radiation signal using differing subsets of sensing elements at differing times and determine data encoded in the radiation signal based on the radiation detected by the different subsets of sensing elements.
US 20180192042 A1 2018-07-05 23 Stolzberg; Jon VIRTUAL DISPLAY ENGINE. A computer implemented method for mapping video to a video wall. The method provides for receiving, by one or more computing devices, content comprising pixel data. The method also provides for generating, by the one or more computing devices, a pixel space. The pixel data is associated with the pixel space by the one or more computing devices. One or more virtual cameras are generated by the one or more computing devices. A portion of the pixel space is captured by the one or more computing devices, and the portion of the pixel space captured by the one or more virtual cameras for display on the video wall is outputted by the one or more computing devices.
US 8145998 B2 2012-03-27 25 Leahy; Dave et al. System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space. The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system. In a preferred embodiment a plurality of users interacts in the three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user. The virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual word. In order that the view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user's avatars, motion information is transmitted to a central server process which provides positions updates to client processes for neighbors of the user at that client process. The client process also uses an environment database to determine which background objects to render as well as to limit the movement of the user's avatar.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “These operations, whether performed sequentially or in combination, cannot be practically executed by the human mind because they involve highly specialized computational tasks.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action ahs determined that only a subset of the limitations of the independent claims can be performed by the human mind:
For example, but for reciting computing elements language, “collecting, in real-time, user engagement information in the virtual environment”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually collecting information.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “capturing every rendered frame in a field of view of the user within the virtual environment that includes the user-specific image”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually capturing an image, like briefly peeking at an object/landscape/image.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “comparing a displayed version of the user-specific image captured in the rendered frame with an original”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually comparing two related images.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “categorizing each pixel of the user-specific image”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually grouping the pixels.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “comparing each pixel with a pixel in the original version”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually performing a comparison.
Further, but for reciting computing elements language, “determining the visibility of the user-specific image in the rendered frames”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user mentally or manually determining a degree of visibility.
The balance of the claims does not have to be preformed by the huma mind as well (see MPEP 2106.04). Applicant argues that a series of limitations cannot be performed by the human mind. Although Applicant’s remark is correct, his remarks are not in the position to change the outcome of the Step2A1 analysis.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Even if the Office were to maintain that the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims are integrated into a practical application at least because the claims (i) provide a clear improvement to a technology or technical field, (ii) apply the concept with a particular machine, and/or (iii) effect a transformation of data.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Advertising in a virtual environment is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first 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. The 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 .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Claims Provide a Clear Improvement to a Technology or Technical Field” Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Claims Apply the Concept with a Particular Machine – a game engine rendering system with in-game camera perspective processing, real-time frame capture capabilities, and per-pixel visibility analysis.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Game engines are well known in the art (see US 2017/0282075 to Michot et al; US 2015/0170394 to Lee)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Claims Effect a Transformation of Data”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that Applicant to the provisions of MPEP 2106(c). However, that paragraph focuses on transformation of matter and not of data (see MPEP 2106(c))
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Claims Amount to Significantly More Than a Judicial Exception Because They Provide an Inventive Concept Under Step 2B”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action has determined at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 11) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 11 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
The prior art doe not disclose the following amended limitations:
capturing rendered frame in a field of view of the user within the virtual environment that include the user-specific image from an in-game camera perspective;
inverting the in-game camera perspective of each rendered frame to flatten an on-screen
version of the user-specific image prior to comparison;
categorizing each pixel of the flattened on-screen version of the user-specific image as being either visible or blocked in the field of view of the user;
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698