DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
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, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 18-19, 22-23, 25-26, 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 recite(s):
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a virtual reality headset communicatively with the processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable memory comprising instructions that are executable by the processor for causing the processor to:
generate a virtual reality environment associated with a user account, wherein the virtual reality environment depicts a set of financial literacy content;
cause the virtual reality headset to render the virtual reality environment for display;
determine a first reading comprehension level for a set of financial literacy content, the set of financial literacy content comprising a plurality of sentences, wherein the first reading comprehension level is determined based on a first sentence structure of the plurality of sentences;
determine a second reading comprehension level associated with the user account based a set of user characteristics, wherein the set of user characteristics comprise an age, an education level, and an average reading speed associated with the user account, wherein the average reading speed is determined by:
detecting user activity observations corresponding to interactions with the user account in the virtual reality environment via the virtual reality headset; and
determining, based on the user activity observation, the average reading speed, wherein the first reading comprehension level is higher than the second reading comprehension level;
input the plurality of sentences into a trained machine learning model in response to identifying a difference between the first reading comprehension level and the second reading comprehension level;
execute the trained machine learning model to generate one or more updates to the plurality of sentences based on the plurality of sentences and the difference, the one or more updates to the plurality of sentences comprising a second sentence structure corresponding;
generate an updated set of financial literacy content based on the one or more updates to the plurality of sentences
determine that the updated set of financial literacy content has a reading comprehension level that matches the second reading comprehension level associated with the user account;
update the rendering of the virtual reality environment on the virtual reality headset to cause the virtual reality environment to include the updated set of financial literacy content.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor” [claim 1, 8 and 15], “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” [claim 1 and 15], “virtual reality headset” and “machine learning model” [claims 1, 8 and 15], nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing students’ reading comprehension on financial literacy, evaluate plurality of sentence and adjusting the plurality of sentences of the learning material accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “processor” [claim 1, 8 and 15], “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” [claim 1 and 15], “virtual reality headset” and “machine learning model” [claims 1, 8 and 15].
The “processor” [claim 1, 8 and 15], “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” [claim 1 and 15], “virtual reality headset” and “machine learning model” [claims 1, 8 and 15] in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 16 showing descriptions generic machine learning model, and paragraph 26 for description of generic computing devices).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 22-23, 25-26, 28-32 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). For examples: claims -5, 7, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 22-23, 25-26, 28-32 show the type user description that goes into the determination of a use’s reading comprehension or a description of further abstract idea (fund transaction). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the limitation of claims 1, 8 and 13; the applicant argued that current guidance only allows for very specific methods of organizing human activity can constitute an abstract idea (see page 10 of the applicant’s argument). The applicant argued that the grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated grouping/subgrouping and is not to be expanded beyond the enumerated grouping (see page 11 of Applicant’s argument). The examiner notes that the rejection rationale above do not rely on rationale outside the enumerated grouping of the organizing human activity. A review of rejection made it clear that the rejection relies on concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that VR headset should not be interpreted as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment. The Applicant argued that the virtual reality headset is not merely field of use or technological environment. The Applicant argued that such user activity observations that are specific to and generated within a virtual reality environment could not be observed by a human, such as by a teacher observing a student, and instead must be captured by the claimed virtual reality headset. As such, the independent claims do not fall within the "Organization of Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas and are therefore not directed to a judicial exception. A review of the Applicant’s only shows the headset being tangentially as an environment where the learning material is displayed (see paragraph 18). It does not provide support to the argument provided by the Applicant.
Similarly, the limitation of “determine a second reading comprehension level associated with the user account based a set of user characteristics, wherein the set of user characteristics comprise an age, an education level, and an average reading speed associated with the user account, wherein the first reading comprehension level is higher than the second reading comprehension level “ can also be interpreted in the same way. A review of the specification, paragraph 15, 21-22 only states that the limitation is performed by a trained machine learning model. The specification does not disclose the necessary solution to performed the recited function instead it only provide a teaching of the end results. Since, both the claim limitation and the specification fails to provide a teaching of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, the examiner takes the position that such limitation is not sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
With respect to applicant’s argument directed to the use of a virtual reality headset to render a visual environment. The examiner takes the position that the VR headset in this particular case is used as method of viewing the learning material. As such it would be considered amount to as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (virtual reality headset) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715