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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a Final Office action in response to communications filed on December 16, 2025. Applicant amended claims 1-2, 10, 16, 19, and 25. Applicant cancelled claim 11. Applicant’s amendments to claims 10, 16, and 25 have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated September 15, 2025. Examiner withdraws the objection to claim 19 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated September 15, 2025. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16, and 19-25 remain pending in the application.
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 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 16, and 19-22 are drawn to a facility for use in providing a simulated environment. (i.e., manufacture). Claims 23-25 are drawn to a computer readable medium comprising instructions. (i.e., manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes
Claim 23 recites:
The facility of claim 1, comprising a computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable medium comprises instructions which when implemented in a computing device enable the computing device to configure one or more functions of the facility and/or verify that a wall configuration satisfies a camera visibility requirement.
These steps amount to a form of mental process and providing instructions for function configuration and verification of camera visibility requirements (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can configure (i.e., change settings to a desired state) functions and verify whether a camera is visible. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “functions may be configured, for example via a user interface on a computing device, to be operated from any of control devices e.g. wall mounted, trigger devices e.g. hand held, or sensors” [0004].
Claims 24-25 are directed towards the computer readable medium (receiving information for performance of an activity, determination of adjustments, and determination of signals that cause the operation of functions). Each claim amounts to a form of mental process and providing instructions for function configuration and verification of camera visibility requirements (i.e., an abstract idea).
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 23 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a computer readable medium, computing device unit, computing equipment, servers, processors, and memory (claims 23-25) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of a computer readable medium (claims 23-25) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined “an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 24-25 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in claims 23-25 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 24-25 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in the respective independent claim is further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in the respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Therefore, claims 23-25 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 16, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under US 20180286288 A1 (“Di Donato”) in view of US 20110200974 A1 (“Gluck”).
In regards to claims 1, Di Donato discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitations.
a facility for use in providing a simulated environment, the facility comprising: a rectangular floor area (([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement … of the simulator” Examiner notes that the view of the simulator depicts a rectangular floor area.” See Annotated Di Donato FIG 5.);
PNG
media_image1.png
651
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of walls and a plurality of connectors for interconnecting the walls in at least two different configurations to form at least two rooms ([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement of the internal walls of the simulator” Examiner notes that the simulator includes walls and rails that may be used for interconnecting the walls and that the inner compartments (rooms) are separated by the walls.” See Annotated Di Donato FIG 5.);
a plurality of cameras ([0036], “Each of the inner compartments … include … cameras”);
and a support structure configured to support the plurality of cameras above the height of the walls to provide a plan view of a floor area of the at least two rooms ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that FIG 3 depicts the cameras above the height of the walls and that the cameras provide a view of the floor area of at least two rooms. See Annotated Di Donato FIG 3.);
PNG
media_image2.png
673
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a monitor configured to display video images from the plurality of cameras by which activity in the facility may be observed, wherein one or both of the cameras or the monitor are configured to crop the video images from the plurality of cameras to respective contiguous areas of the rectangular floor area of the facility ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that FIG 3 depicts the cameras that may be configured to crop video images of the adjacent rectangular floor areas. See Annotated Di Donato FIG 3.), and wherein the monitor is configured to display a composite image comprising a set of similarly cropped video images from the respective cameras in an arrangement which corresponds to a spatial arrangement of the contiguous areas on a floor plan of the facility.
Gluck discloses
and a monitor configured to display video images from the plurality of cameras by which activity in the facility may be observed, and wherein the monitor is configured to display a composite image comprising a set of similarly cropped video images from the respective cameras in an arrangement which corresponds to a spatial arrangement of the contiguous areas on a floor plan of the facility ([0055], "the displays in the cockpit allow the crew to monitor the current status of the helicopter cabin ... images can be
displayed on a monitor system in the cockpit in real time").
Di Donato and Gluck are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of simulator environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a facility for use in providing a simulated environment, the facility comprising: a rectangular floor area; a plurality of walls and a plurality of connectors for interconnecting the walls in at least two different configurations to form at least two rooms; a plurality of cameras; and a support structure configured to support the plurality of cameras above the height of the walls to provide a plan view of a floor area of the at least two rooms; wherein one or both of the cameras or the monitor are configured to crop the video images from the plurality of cameras to respective contiguous areas of the rectangular floor area of the facility, as disclosed by Di Donato, and a monitor configured to display video images from the plurality of cameras by which activity in the facility may be observed, and wherein the monitor is configured to display a composite image comprising a set of similarly cropped video images from the respective cameras in an arrangement which corresponds to a spatial arrangement of the contiguous areas on a floor plan of the facility, as disclosed by Gluck, to provide a monitor system, displays, and cockpit for an air rescue simulator which comprises a helicopter passenger cabin.
In regards to claim 2, Di Donato discloses
wherein the plurality of cameras are arranged such that the floor area of all the at least two rooms is visible by the plurality of cameras in the at least two different configurations ([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement of the internal walls of the simulator” Examiner notes that Annotated Di Donato FIG 5 depicts a floor area that is visible by the cameras in two compartments (rooms).).
In regards to claim 3, Di Donato discloses
wherein the camera positions are sufficiently high that the walls are also visible to a predetermined height ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that FIG 3 depicts the camera positions high enough such that the walls are visible. See Annotated Di Donato FIG 3.).
In regards to claim 4, Di Donato discloses
wherein the plurality of cameras comprises an array of at least 2x2 cameras ([0036], “Provided in the cabin … are … cameras” Examiner notes that a 2x2 camera array consists of four cameras arranged in a square formation. Examiner also notes that the number of cameras in the Di Donato invention may be any number of cameras, arranged in any manner.).
In regards to claim 5, Di Donato discloses
wherein the plurality of cameras are arranged at a uniform height above a floor of the facility ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that FIG 3 depicts the cameras at the same height above a floor. See Annotated Di Donato FIG 3.).
In regards to claim 6, Di Donato discloses
wherein the walls are configurable in a rectangular grid arrangement ([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement of the internal walls of the simulator” Examiner notes that Annotated Di Donato FIG 5 depicts a rectangular arrangement.) and each camera of the plurality of cameras is arranged to view a plurality of squares within the grid ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that FIG 3 depicts the cameras, which may be arranged to view any portion of the walls.).
In regards to claim 7, Di Donato discloses
a kit of parts for constructing a facility as claimed in claim 1 ([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement of the internal walls of the simulator” Examiner notes that the simulator includes walls and rails that may be used for interconnecting the walls.” See Annotated Di Donato FIG 5.; [0036], “Each of the inner compartments … include … cameras”).
In regards to claim 9, Di Donato discloses
further comprising one or more floor panels marked with possible positions for the walls and/or recesses or other locating means for receiving the walls and/or connectors ([0030], “The flooring is resistant to abrasion, reduces noise from foot traffic, is cigarette resistant, is antistatic, reduces the risk of slipping and resists fire.” Examiner notes that the flooring, although resistant to abrasion, may be marked by application of paint, tape, or other material to the surface.).
In regards to claim 10, Di Donato discloses the following limitation with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein an aspect ratio of the rectangular floor area ([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement … of the simulator” Examiner notes that the view of the simulator depicts a rectangular floor area.” See Annotated Di Donato FIG 5.) matches the aspect ratio of the monitor.
Gluck discloses
matches an aspect ratio of the monitor ([0055], "the displays in the cockpit allow the crew to monitor the current status of the helicopter cabin ... images can be displayed on a monitor system in the cockpit in real time" Examiner notes that an aspect ratio of a rectangular area can match an aspect ratio of a monitor.).
Di Donato and Gluck are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of simulator environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a facility for use in providing a simulated environment comprising a plurality of walls and a plurality of connectors for interconnecting the walls in at least two different configurations to form at least two rooms, a plurality of cameras, and a support structure configured to support the plurality of cameras above the height of the walls, and wherein an aspect ratio of the rectangular floor area, as disclosed by Di Donato, matches an aspect ratio of the monitor, as disclosed by Gluck, to provide a monitor and displays for an air rescue simulator which comprises a helicopter passenger cabin.
In regards to claim 12, Di Donato discloses
further comprising a lighting system, wherein the support structure is configured also to support the lighting system ([0039], “The simulator is equipped with integrated lighting and emergency lighting” Examiner notes that the lighting bodies are located near the cameras. See Annotated Di Donato FIG 4.).
PNG
media_image3.png
637
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 13, Di Donato discloses
comprising a plurality of control devices operable manually from within the facility to wirelessly control one or more functions of the facility and wherein the plurality of control devices are configured to be removable mountable at a plurality of different locations in the facility ([0036], “Provided in the cabin … are a workstation with an electronic computer … and control devices of various equipment located in the inner compartments”).
In regards to claim 16, Di Donato does not disclose comprising one or more sensors or trigger devices wherein one or more functions of the facility is operable is operable in response to a signal from the one or more sensors or trigger devices.
Gluck discloses
comprising one or more sensors or trigger devices wherein one or more functions of the facility is operable is operable in response to a signal from the one or more sensors or trigger devices ([0100], “fail-safe sensors for tail retraction, … the winch arm pivoting sensor, the cable output sensor and the cable load sensor of the winch are connected … the two sensor evaluation panels, the pilot's demands and the states of the sensors are checked”).
Di Donato and Gluck are considered analogous to the claim invention because they are in the field of simulator environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a facility for use in providing a simulated environment comprising a plurality of walls and a plurality of connectors for interconnecting the walls in at least two different configurations to form at least two rooms, a plurality of cameras, and a support structure configured to support the plurality of cameras above the height of the walls, as disclosed by Di Donato, comprising one or more sensors or trigger devices wherein one or more functions of the facility is operable is operable in response to a signal from the one or more sensors or trigger devices, as disclosed by Gluck, to provide fail-safe sensors, a winch arm pivoting sensor, a cable output sensor, and a cable load sensor for an air rescue simulator which comprises a helicopter passenger cabin.
In regards to claim 19, Di Donato discloses
configured to provide one or more functions being any one or more of: lighting, imagery, explosion, smoke generation, aroma generation, sound, and appearance or movement of a target ([0041], “Emergency ceiling lights with indication of the escape routes, warning pictograms, … and a grounding system with an attached pole and/or cable lugs with a cable of suitable cross-section for connection to the existing ground wire are provided.”).
In regards to claim 20, Di Donato discloses
wherein the plurality of cameras are configured to capture and transmit only the image data from a subset of pixels corresponding to a rectangular area within a camera field of view of a camera of the plurality of cameras ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that Annotated Di Donato FIG 3 depicts the cameras, which may capture and transmit data from a subset of pixels.” Examiner notes that capturing and transmitting subset pixel data is a common technique in digital imaging.).
In regards to claim 21, Di Donato discloses
wherein the plurality of cameras are arranged in the facility such that the subsets of pixels correspond to substantially contiguous areas on the facility floor ([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement of the internal walls of the simulator” Examiner notes that Annotated Di Donato FIG 5 depicts cameras arranged where the floor area corresponds to the subset of pixels.).
In regards to claim 22, Di Donato discloses
wherein the plurality of cameras are configured to adjust one or more of pan, tilt and zoom, and are mounted so as to be adjustable between one room configuration and another to achieve a required visibility of floor area, without the need to move the plurality of cameras from their mounting position ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that FIG 3 depicts cameras that may be adjusted to pan, tilt, or zoom and maintain visibility without removing the cameras from position. See Annotated Di Donato FIG 3.).
In regards to claim 23, Di Donato discloses
comprising a computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable medium comprises instructions which when implemented in a computing device enable the computing device to configure one or more functions of the facility and/or verify that a wall configuration satisfies a camera visibility requirement ([0042], “The training … cabin with operator in a workstation equipped with a computerized system … allows the operator to … condition the same by activating … smoke, … strobe lighting, aspirator/air conditioner, … water leaks and more in order to alter the cognitive skills of the subjects in training”).
In regards to claim 24, Di Donato discloses
wherein the computing device implementing the instructions is configured to receive information relating to an activity to be performed in the facility and/or to the configuration of the walls and to determine an adjustment any of pan, tilt and zoom of at least one of the plurality of cameras according to the activity and/or the configuration ([0042], “The training activity … cabin with operator in a workstation equipped with a computerized system … to condition the same by activating, depending on the case, cameras” Examiner notes that the computerized system may determine an camera adjustment of pan, tilt, and zoom based on the activity being performed.).
In regards to claim 25, Di Donato discloses
wherein the computing device implementing the instructions is configured to present a user interface to receive user input to determine which signals ([0042], “The training … cabin with operator in a workstation equipped with a computerized system … allows the operator to … condition the same by activating … smoke, … strobe lighting, aspirator/air conditioner, … water leaks and more”) from any of a control device ([0036], “Provided in the cabin … are a workstation with an electronic computer … and control devices”), a trigger device or a sensor cause the operation of the one or more functions of the facility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claims 1-2, 10, 16, 19, and 25. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16, and 19-25 remain pending in the application.
With respect to “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, Applicant argues “pages 4 and 6 of the Office action mistakenly refer to ‘independent claim 23’” (See AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE, REMARKS, Page 6, paragraph 7). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and Examiner corrects pages 4 (Step 2A – Prong Two) and 6 (Step 2B) of the Office action to read “claims 23-25”.
With respect to “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, Applicant argues “claims 23-25 are directed to eligible subject matter under the Alice/May two-part test” (See AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE, REMARKS, Page 6, paragraph 8). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. However, as Examiner has demonstrated in Step 2A – Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test, the idea of a computer readable medium, wherein the computer readable medium comprises instructions which when implemented in a computing device enable the computing device to configure one or more functions of the facility and/or verify that a wall configuration satisfies a camera visibility requirement (claim 23), wherein the computing device implementing the instructions is configured to receive information relating to an activity to be performed in the facility and/or to the configuration of the walls and to determine an adjustment any of pan, tilt and zoom of at least one of the plurality of cameras according to the activity and/or the configuration (claim 24), and wherein the computing device implementing the instructions is configured to present a user interface to receive user input to determine which signals from any of a control device, a trigger device or a sensor cause the operation of the one or more functions of the facility (claim 25) recite a judicial exception and amount to a form of mental process, mathematical computations, and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea). The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are “the basic tools of scientific and technological work”, and are thus excluded from patentability because “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it”. Alice Corp.,573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). In addition, the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson “held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). Claims 23-25 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the 101 rejections are maintained.
With respect to “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103”, Applicant argues that “the cited art does not disclose or suggest all the limitations of the amended claims and there is no articulated reasoning with sufficient rational underpinning to account for the deficiencies of the cited art.” (See AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE, REMARKS, Page 8, paragraph 5). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. With respect to amended claim 1, Di Donato discloses a facility for use in providing a simulated environment, the facility comprising: a rectangular floor area (([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement … of the simulator” Examiner notes that the view of the simulator depicts a rectangular floor area.” See Annotated Di Donato FIG 5.); a plurality of walls and a plurality of connectors for interconnecting the walls in at least two different configurations to form at least two rooms ([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement of the internal walls of the simulator” Examiner notes that the simulator includes walls and rails that may be used for interconnecting the walls and that the inner compartments (rooms) are separated by the walls.” See Annotated Di Donato FIG 5.); a plurality of cameras ([0036], “Each of the inner compartments … include … cameras”); and a support structure configured to support the plurality of cameras above the height of the walls to provide a plan view of a floor area of the at least two rooms ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that FIG 3 depicts the cameras above the height of the walls and that the cameras provide a view of the floor area of at least two rooms. See Annotated Di Donato FIG 3.); wherein one or both of the cameras or the monitor are configured to crop the video images from the plurality of cameras to respective contiguous areas of the rectangular floor area of the facility ([0028], “FIG. 3 is a … cross-section of the simulator” Examiner notes that FIG 3 depicts the cameras that may be configured to crop video images of the adjacent rectangular floor areas. See Annotated Di Donato FIG 3.) and Gluck discloses and a monitor configured to display video images from the plurality of cameras by which activity in the facility may be observed, and wherein the monitor is configured to display a composite image comprising a set of similarly cropped video images from the respective cameras in an arrangement which corresponds to a spatial arrangement of the contiguous areas on a floor plan of the facility ([0055], “the displays in the cockpit allow the crew to monitor the current status of the helicopter cabin ... images can be displayed on a monitor system in the cockpit in real time”). The combination of Di Donato and Gluck discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to amended claim 10, Di Donato discloses wherein an aspect ratio of the rectangular floor area ([0030], “FIG. 5 is a … view of the arrangement … of the simulator” Examiner notes that the view of the simulator depicts a rectangular floor area.” See Annotated Di Donato FIG 5.) and Gluck discloses matches an aspect ratio of the monitor ([0055], "the displays in the cockpit allow the crew to monitor the current status of the helicopter cabin ... images can be displayed on a monitor system in the cockpit in real time" Examiner notes that an aspect ratio of a rectangular area can match an aspect ratio of a monitor.).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during
examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless
such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim
limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejections of amended claims 1 and 10, as obvious by Di Donato in view of Gluck, are maintained. Consequently, the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-25 are maintained.
Furthermore, MPEP 2141.01(a) discusses obviousness regarding analogous art. Under MPEP 2141.01(a), a reference is analogous to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor (even if it addresses a different problem): or (2) the reference is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Examiner notes that combined Di Donato and Gluck are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Therefore, the rejections of amended claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-25, as obvious over Di Donato in view of Gluck, are maintained.
As to establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, upon review, the examiner’s rejection satisfied the requirements for applying Rationale G in 2143(I)(G). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument does not meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), and, upon review, the rejection does make a prima facie case using 2143(I)(G). Therefore, the rejections of amended claims 1 and 10, as obvious over Di Donato in view of Gluck are maintained. Consequently, the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-25 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252 and whose email address is lantoine@uspto.gov. The examiner can be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CDT. 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, Xuan Thai, can be reached on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/LISA H ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715