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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/14/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 include the limitations of “comprising a first sampling rate or a first pixel density” and these were 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 include the limitations of “for display by the 3-D viewer by comparing, in the video graphics module, a region of interest corresponding to the priority asset in the first and second priority asset 3-D video frames” and these were 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 include the limitations of “comprising a second sampling rate that is lower than the first sampling rate or a second pixel density that is less than the first pixel density” and these were 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 include the limitations of “thereby reducing processor workload by at least 25% and reducing video graphics module memory bandwidth by at least 20%” and these were 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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, 7, and 13 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by human being and/or recite a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claims 1, 7, and 13, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method for creating a [visual] environment regarding a topic, the method comprises:
generating […] a first set of models of a first set of illustrative assets for subsequent rendering within the [visual] environment to provide a three dimensional (3-D) representation of a first set of bullet points associated with the topic;
generating […] a second set of models of a second set of illustrative assets for subsequent rendering within the [visual] environment to provide a three dimensional (3-D) representation of a second set of bullet points associated with the topic;
identifying […] a priority asset represented as a common illustrative asset that:
is common to the first set of illustrative assets and the second set of illustrative assets, and depicts a portion of each bullet point of the first and second sets of bullet points, wherein the priority asset is associated with an importance status level…topic; and
rendering […] a model of the priority asset for the first set of bullet points utilizing a first level of resolution comprising a first sampling rate or a first pixel density to produce a set of priority asset 3-D [displays] associated with the first level of resolution;
identifying […] a first priority asset 3-D [display] of the set of priority asset 3-D [displays] that represents a first aspect of the first set of bullet points;
identifying […] a second priority asset 3-D [display] of the set of priority asset 3-D [displays] that represents a second aspect of the second set of bullet points;
establishing […] the first priority asset video [display] within the [visual] environment for display by the 3-D viewer by comparing […] a region of interest corresponding to the priority asset in the first and second priority asset 3-D [display] and determining that when identifying more than a minimum threshold number of pixels of the first priority asset 3-D [display] and second priority asset 3-D [display] are the same;
rendering […] a subsequent portion of the first set of models of the first set of illustrative assets, that excludes the model of the priority asset by reusing, without re-rendering the priority asset, the established prior asset [visual display] for the first set of bullet points utilizing a second level of resolution comprising a second sampling rate that is lower than the first sampling rate or a second pixel density that is less than the first pixel density to produce a set of remaining to produce a set of remaining 3-D [displays] associated with the second level of resolution within the [visual] environment for display […], wherein the second level of resolution is a lower [visual] resolution level than the first level of resolution […].
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or recite a method of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a computing entity comprising at least one processor, a video graphics module, and a 3-D viewer; employing virtual reality, employing digital video comprising frames and pixels; a computing device comprising an interface, a memory, and a processing module, wherein the memory stores computer instructions that embody Applicant’s abstract idea; and/or a non-transitory computer readable memory; these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a a computing entity comprising at least one processor, a video graphics module, and a 3-D viewer; employing virtual reality, employing digital video comprising frames and pixels; a computing device comprising an interface, a memory, and a processing module, wherein the memory stores computer instructions that embody Applicant’s abstract idea; and/or a non-transitory computer readable memory; these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1, 2A-2B, and 3 in Applicant’s specification and text regarding same; and see, e.g., F11B and 11C and text regarding same in regard to 3-D video frames.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101
PNG
media_image1.png
199
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is unclear but it appears that Applicant is arguing that because its abstract idea when embodied as computer code would allegedly render fewer video frames than, presumably, some other abstract idea when embodied as computer code that Applicant has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. To the extent that this appears to be Applicant’s argument, it is unpersuasive. Applicant’s invention in this regard is not a generally applicable improvement to any of claimed computing devices in terms of the invention does not result in Applicant’s claimed computing system generally being able to, e.g., run faster in regard to executing any computer program. Instead, Applicant argues that its abstract idea when embodied as computer code essentially executes faster than some other hypothetical abstract idea when embodied as computer code, to the extent that Applicant’s abstract idea results in not having to re-render certain video frames. Following Applicant’s logic, an invention that required no rendering of video frames would necessarily claim patent eligible subject matter to the extent that it would diminish the number of video frames having to be rendered to zero but that, of course, would be non-sensical.
To the extent Applicant cites various case law none of it is analogous as the case law cited supra in the rejection. In terms of, Applicant’s claimed invention does not concern an improvement to self-referential database technology, nor concerns employing specific morph rule to provide improve animation of human faces, nor concerns a system and method for using "mobile code runtime monitoring" to protect against malicious downloadables, nor concerns a method of restricting use of a licensed software program on a computer that has at least two “non-volatile memory areas” and one volatile area. Instead, Applicant’s claimed invention concerns providing instructional material to human beings by collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing that instructional material based on that analysis and, thereby, is patent ineligible as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process and method of organizing human activity of teaching/training human beings. Applicant’s claims are also abstract to the extent they includes limitations concerning computing certain functions and scores.
Applicant argues on page 10 that the Berkheimer finding made in the 101 was allegedly deficient. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because all of the limitations that Applicant references are identified in the rejection as being part of the abstract idea and not claimed in addition to that abstract idea. Therefore, no Berkheimer finding need be made in regard to these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715