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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 15 and 18 – 20 are pending
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13 and 20 are amended.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 15 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 5, 8-10 are drawn to a method.
Claims 11 – 15, 18, 19 are drawn to an apparatus.
Claims 20 are drawn to a CRM.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 11 -15 and 18 - 19 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
11. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for enabling a digital character depicted at a display device to interact with a first person located in a physical environment, the apparatus comprising:
a network communication unit configured to transmit and receive data; and
one or more controllers configured to:
provide for an interaction between the digital character and the first person by controlling a performance of the digital character depicted at the display device by an artificial intelligence (AI) game-engine; and
during the interaction between the digital character and the first person:
receive a request from the first person;
cause a change to a digital object in a digital environment in response to the interaction between the digital character and the first person; and
cause a change in the physical environment in which the first person is located in response to an action by the digital character depicted at the display device, wherein the change in the physical environment is associated with a physical object in the physical environment corresponding to the digital object in the digital environment, and wherein the digital object is different from the physical object,
wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to cause the change in the physical environment by servicing the request by providing the physical object to be delivered by a physical object dispensing device for retrieval by the first person,
wherein the physical object comprises an item that is pre-made, and
wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to, prior to providing the physical object comprising the item that is pre-made, control the display device to display
repetitions of at least one animation loop or animation sequence depicting a preparation of the item,
wherein the method further comprises synchronizing the physical object and the digital object such that they match in visual appearance and timing, and the digital object disappears as the physical object appears to move out of the physical object dispensing device,
wherein the digital character is configured to interact with a plurality of persons detected by a camera or a microphone located in the physical environment, to detect a response from any of the plurality of persons using the camera or the microphone, and to continue to interact based on the detected response.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and the managing of interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are the causing of an interaction between a detected person and an avatar, wherein the avatar interacts with the person based upon detected interactions, wherein a user makes a request and the request is serviced by causing a change in the user’s physical environment wherein the item is delivered or dispensed to the person and an animation of the item being prepared is presented to the user in conjunction with delivery or dispensing of the physical item.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): game engine, display device communication units, controllers, devices, camera and/or microphone.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer game engine, display devices, communication units and controllers. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0054] As described earlier with reference to FIG. 1, the system 102 includes at least one video capture device (e.g., a camera) and at least one audio capture device (e.g., a microphone). It is understood that the camera and microphone and camera can exist in the virtual world and be experienced by a customer in virtual reality. For example, a customer may be controlling a digital avatar existing in the digital realm through an input device, such as a joystick, a mouse, or 14 Attorney Docket No.: 2241-3015C1 a virtual reality (VR) or motion capture input. Interactions occur within the digital realm, except for a vending/delivery of an item (e.g., box 302), which still occurs in the physical realm. For example, the customer plays a game, which interacts with game characters corresponding to the customers, and not directly with the customers. In this situation, the customers enter and experience the digital realm as digital avatars, the movements of which are controlled by the customers, based on input provided in the physical realm. As such, an avatar can be controlled to move in the digital realm in some manner (e.g., walk, jump, fly, teleport). When the presence of the digital avatar is detected in the digital realm, interactions with the digital avatar are initiated similar to a manner in which interactions with a customer are initiated upon detection of a presence of the customer in the physical realm (e.g., environment 100). Once the customer has triggered a change to occur in the physical realm (e.g., the delivery of an item), the change is realized in the physical realm.
[0103] In selected embodiments, features and aspects described herein may be implemented within a computing environment 700, as shown in FIG. 7, which may include one or more computer servers 701. The server 701 may be operatively coupled to one or more data stores 702 (e.g., databases, indexes, files, or other data structures). The server 701 may connect to a data communication network 703 including a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN) (e.g., the Internet), a telephone network, a satellite or wireless communication network, or some combination of these or similar networks.
[0104] One or more client devices 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 may be in communication with the server 701, and a corresponding data store 702 via the data communication network 703. Such client devices 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 may include, for example, one or more laptop computers 707, desktop computers 704, smartphones and mobile phones 705, tablet computers 706, televisions 708, motion capture sensor(s) 709, camera(s) 710, or combinations thereof. In operation, such client devices 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 may send and receive data or instructions to or from the server 701 in response to user input received from user input devices or other input. In response, the server 701 may serve data from the data store 702, alter data within the data store 702, add data to the data store 702, or the like, or combinations thereof.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Hasegawa et al (US 2021/0192183) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0087] In addition, the arrangement of a plurality of edge servers 200 (an edge server 200 is arranged for each base, for example) makes it possible to disperse the load of verification from among the respective edge servers 200, and thus, a further reduction in the load can be achieved. Moreover, an analysis process in a plurality of edge servers 200 makes it possible for a small-scale equipment process to carry out simple machine learning. As a result, easy and simple machine learning becomes possible, which substitutes for a conventional large-scale AI engine.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8 – 15 and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 20110108569) in view of Gatebox as evidenced by Horia Ungureanu “Gatebox Hologram Communication Robot Banks On VR And IoT To Rival Siri, Cortana And Amelia [Video]”
As per claim 1, Jones discloses:
providing for an interaction between the digital character and the first person by controlling a performance of the digital character depicted at the display device (Jones discloses a digital character that interacts with a first person) (Jones 0053, 0081 – 0083)
during the interaction between the digital character and the first person: (Jones 0053, 0081 – 0083)
receiving a request from the first person; (Jones discloses a user making a request of certain dessert selections) (Jones 0055)
causing a change to a digital object in a digital environment in response to the interaction between the digital character and the first person; and (Jones discloses the change in the digital environment simulating the building of the dessert by the character) (Jones 0086, 0088, 0090, 0094)
causing a change in the physical environment in which the first person is located in response to an action by the digital character depicted at the display device, wherein the change in the physical environment is associated with a physical object in the physical environment corresponding to the digital object in the digital environment, and wherein the digital object is different from the physical object, (Jones discloses the creation of a real work dessert in correspondence with the digital dessert assembled in the virtual environment) (Jones 0091 – 0098)
wherein causing the change in the physical environment comprises servicing the request by providing the physical object to be delivered by a physical object dispensing device for retrieval by the first person, (Jones discloses the delivering or dispensing of the item to the user) (Jones 0098 – 0099)
wherein the physical object comprises an item that is pre-made, and (Jones discloses a deserrt comprising premade ingredients) (Jones 0091 – 0098)
wherein the method further comprises:
prior to providing the physical object comprising the item that is pre-made, controlling the display device to display repetitions of at least one animation loop or animation sequence depicting a preparation of the item, (Jones discloses the display device showing animation sequences of the dessert being made or prepared) (Jones 0092, 0094)
wherein the method further comprises synchronizing the physical object and the digital object such that they match in visual appearance and timing, and the digital object disappears as the physical object appears to move out of the physical object dispensing device, (Jones discloses the displaying of the item being made on a display that is synchronized with the physical item being made) (Jones 0091 – 0098)
Jones fails to disclose:
by an artificial intelligence (Al) game-engine; and
wherein the digital character is configured to interact with a plurality of persons detected by a camera or a microphone located in the physical environment, to detect a response from any of the plurality of persons using the camera or the microphone, and to continue to interact based on the detected response
However, in a similar field of endeavor Gatebox discloses a AI based character that interacts with a user’s presence as detetected by a camera or microphone (Gatebox page 1 – 2) Gatebox teaches the system is usable with the IoT technology that comprises network communication units to control other devices such as lights and air conditioners etc. (Gatebox page 1- 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Jones in view of Gatebox to use a known technique to improves similar devices in the same way by means of a AI digital character that interacts with a user based upon detecting the user’s presence by mean so a sensor such as a camera or microphone. This would be beneficial as it would make the system more immersive so the user feels as if the digital character is a real interactive entity that is aware of its surroundings.
As per claim 2, determining a presence of the first person in the physical environment, wherein providing for the interaction between the digital character and the first person is performed in response to determining the presence of the first person. (Combination of Jones and Gatebox as applied above) (Gatebox page 1 -2)
As per claim 3, wherein the determination of the presence of the first person is performed based on data received from at least the camera or the microphone (Gatebox page 1 – 2).
As per claim 4, wherein causing the change in the physical environment comprises causing a second physical object different from the display device to be moved or displaced within the physical environment. (Jones discloses the user is able to create and purchase multiple desserts) (Jones entire disclosure).
As per claim 5, causing the change in the physical environment comprises controlling a light source located in the physical environment to be turned either on or off. (Combination of Jones and Gatebox, wherein Gatebox teaches the setting of a light in the environment) (Gatebox page 2)
As per claim 8, the physical object further comprises a second item to be prepared at the physical environment after the request is received; and the method further comprises: prior to providing the physical object further comprising the second item, controlling the display device to display repetitions of at least a first animation loop or animation sequence depicting a preparation of the second item. (Jones discloses the preparation of multiple items as the user desires and the displaying of animation sequences showing the preparations of the items) (Jones 0086, 0088, 0091 – 0098)
As per claim 9, receiving information indicating that the preparation of the second item at the physical environment is not yet complete, wherein controlling the display device to display the repetitions of the at least the first animation loop or animation sequence comprises controlling the display device to display at least a second animation loop or animation sequence in response to receiving the information. (Jones disclose the monitoring of the first or second items being prepared in stages and displaying the corresponding animation associated with that particure stages such as a topping or ice cream) (Jones 0086, 0088, 0091 – 0098)
As per claim 10, receiving information indicating that the preparation of the second item at the physical environment is complete, wherein controlling the display device to display the repetitions of the at least the first animation loop or animation sequence comprises controlling the display device to display animation depicting the second item in a completed state. (Jones disclose the monitoring of the first or second items being prepared in stages of completion and displaying the corresponding animation associated with that particular stages such as a topping or ice cream) (Jones 0086, 0088, 0091 – 0098)
Independent claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Jones and Gatebox based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 12 – 15, 18 and 19 is/are made obvious by the combination of Jones and Gatebox based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2 - 5, 8 and 9, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection in view of newly found references to Jones and Gatebox.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 with regards to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues essentially that a human utilizing manual means cannot detect a person in a physical environment, synchronize the preparation and delivery of a physical item with a displayed animation of the creation and presentation of the item and cause a character such as a animated character animated utilizing manual means to interact with a person based upon interactions made by the person. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes these limitations clearly encompass a mental process and certain methods of organizing human behavior such as the managing of a user’s interactions. The Applicant further states “The claimed system therefore improves the operation of a mixed physical/digital interactive environment by coordinating sensed real-world responses, digital character interaction, digital animation, and physical object dispensing.” And “The claims now require additional physical components and operations, including a camera or microphone located in the physical environment, detection of responses from any of a plurality of persons, a physical object dispensing device, and synchronization of a physical object with a digital object such that the digital object disappears as the physical object appears to move out of the dispensing device. These limitations define a particular machine and a specific technological implementation, not a generic computer implementation of an abstract idea. “ (Remarks page 1-2). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that beyond the allegation of proving a practical application, the Applicant fails to specifically point out how the computer is improved or the technology is specifically improved or in what way beyond the generalization that it “improves” the user experience. The Examiner further notes that the mere inclusion of generic components such as a camera or microphone to perform their conventional functionality (i.e. sensing and detecting) does not give evidence alone or in combination that the limitations are indicative of integration into a practical application, such as improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a), but they rather appear to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
9/15/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
