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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 2/10/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-23 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, 12, 19-20 and are acknowledged. Applicant’s addition of new claims 21-23 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3-4 and 7 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 8-11, Applicant argues the 101 rejection. Here Applicant cites case law, sections of the MPEP, and then asserts that the claims are not within one of the judicial exceptions. However, the Examiner provided reasonings in the 101 rejection below why the claims did recite a judicial exception, consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a) that discusses types of abstract ideas, cited herein:
Simulating business information according to known or collected rules or constraints (business report), permissions, collaboration between users, and updating the simulation overtime based on inputs from users like time is a concept relating to the economy or commerce (commercial practice). Concepts relating to the economy or commerce (commercial practice) are fundamental economic practices. Fundamental economic practices or principles are in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite a judicial exception.
On Remarks pages 11-13, Applicant argues the claims recite an improvement in a technical field and argues Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0039. While the Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments here, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Here the specification merely sets forth an improvement in a conclusory manner (e.g. a bar assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art) (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Here the specification and the corresponding claims (as required to reflect the disclosed improvement as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not disclose how the computer performs the modifications (or the mechanism for performing the result). Rather the claims merely recite a result oriented solution of using a virtual reality simulation and virtual reality device to broadly perform the fundamental economic practice (Certain method of organizing human activity) of analyzing a business report for correlating information, creating and outputting a simulation, and where the simulations are updated based on input (see claim 1). This is equivalent to the words apply it, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)), and in the office action below with respect to claim 1.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 14, Applicant argues that the claims are not a fundamental economic practice because the claims do not recite creating a contract, hedging or mitigating risk settlement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Those are merely some of the examples provided in MPEP 2106.04(a). MPEP 2106.04(a) defines fundamental economic practices as follows:
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles
The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks.
The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). However, being old or well-known may indicate that the practice is fundamental. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219-20, 110 USPQ2d 1981-82 (2014) (describing the concept of intermediated settlement, like the risk hedging in Bilski, to be a "‘fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce’" and also as "a building block of the modern economy") (citation omitted); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (claims to the concept of hedging are a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.") (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’").
An example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (2010). The fundamental economic practice at issue was hedging or protecting against risk. The applicant in Bilski claimed "a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk," i.e., how to protect against risk. 561 U.S. at 599, 95 USPQ2d at 1005. The method allowed energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand for energy. The Supreme Court determined that hedging is "fundamental economic practice" and therefore is an "unpatentable abstract idea." 561 U.S. at 611-12, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
Another example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fundamental economic practice at issue in Bancorp pertained to insurance. The patentee in Bancorp claimed methods and systems for managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day. 687 F.3d at 1270-71, 103 USPQ2d at 1427. The court described the claims as an "attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [managing a stable value protected life insurance policy] and then instruct the use of well-known [calculations] to help establish some of the inputs into the equation." 687 F.3d at 1278, 103 USPQ2d at 1433 (alterations in original) (citing Bilski).
Other examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices" include:
i. mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014);
ii. rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. financial instruments that are designed to protect against the risk of investing in financial instruments, In re Chorna, 656 Fed. App'x 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
iv. offer-based price optimization, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
v. local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
vi. using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object, Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and
vii. placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Simulating business information according to known or collected rules or constraints (business report), permissions, collaboration between users, and updating the simulation overtime based on inputs from users like time is a concept relating to the economy or commerce (commercial practice). Concepts relating to the economy or commerce (commercial practice) are fundamental economic practices.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 14-15, Applicant argues other methods of organizing human activity and mental process steps however such arguments are not persuasive as the Examiner has rejected the claims under certain methods of organizing human activities as the claims recite a fundamental economic practice as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
On Remarks pages 16-17, Applicant argues the 101 rejection. Here Applicant argues a practical application. Specifically here Applicant argues the claim amendments recite a meaningful limitation that goes beyond merely linking a judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim amendments of receiving and updating recite fundamental economic practice steps. Specifically of receiving input for changing a time factor for a simulation along a future timeline and updating the simulation to correspond to the changed time factor. The additional element that the simulation is “animated virtual reality” merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recites a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to virtual reality rather applicant is merely using animated virtual reality as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite is broadly recite in the claims that the simulation is “animated virtual reality” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 18-20 Applicant argues the claims recite a particular solution rooted in computer technology and cites the DDR decision for this argument. The Examiner strongly disagrees. The claims are not recited in a way that recites a particular solution rooted in computer technology. Rather the claims are recited at such a high level of abstract that they really recite certain method of organizing human activity steps, specifically analyzing business report information for correlations and effects, creating and outputting a simulation based on that analyzing, and updating the simulation based on inputs where one input can be time. These steps of simulation can happen and exist outside the realm of computer networks as broadly recited in the claims. The only additional elements of the method being “computer” implemented through “animated virtual reality” and “virtual reality” devices merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 20, Applicant argues the amendments and new claims with respect to the 101 rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as these new limitations have been addressed in the updated 101 rejection below.
On remarks pages 21-22, Applicant argues the 112 a/first and second/b rejections. Based on Applicant’s amendments the previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 22-26 are acknowledged, however are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Applicant’s amendments. It is noted that with respect to claim 7 additional elements where added to the limitation and then was amended into the independent claims.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 8-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-18, and 21-23 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claim 19 recites an article of manufacture as the claims recite a computer readable medium being executed by a computer to cause the computer to. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. “As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03” (see MPEP 2106.03). However, it is noted that claim 19 is not interpreted as signals per se based on Applicant’s specification, that states that computer readable storage medium is not be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, see paragraph 0022 (cited herein): “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media. As will be understood by those of skill in the art, data is typically moved at some occasional points in time during normal operations of a storage device, such as during access, de-fragmentation or garbage collection, but this does not render the storage device as transitory because the data is not transitory while it is stored.” Claim 20 is a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor executing logic.
The claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-23 recite simulating business information according to known or collected rules or constraints (business report), permissions, collaboration between users, and updating the simulation overtime based on inputs from users like time.
The idea of simulating business information according to known or collected rules or constraints (business report), permissions, collaboration between users, and updating the simulation overtime based on inputs from users like time is recited at such a high level of abstraction in the claims, that the claims recite a fundamental economic practice or principal.
Simulating business information according to known or collected rules or constraints (business report), permissions, collaboration between users, and updating the simulation overtime based on inputs from users like time is a concept relating to the economy or commerce (commercial practice). Concepts relating to the economy or commerce (commercial practice) are fundamental economic practices. Fundamental economic practices or principles are in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could receive parameters relating to a business (business intelligence report), determine the effects on the physical environment, and create a simulation based on the analysis of the report and output or provide the simulation for display, as broadly recited in the claims. Further the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could perform a simulation at a different time like the future, for example monitoring sales or number of customers in the morning vs the evening.
The additional elements that these limitations that as broadly recited in the claims could be performed by a human or human that instead this method is “computer implemented”, the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recites a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to virtual reality rather applicant is merely using animated virtual reality as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite is broadly recited in the claims that this method is “computer implemented”, the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could perform a simulation at a time corresponding to when some of the parameters (business report) was collected. The additional element that this process is computer implemented and the simulation is in the animated virtual reality environment recite merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 5, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could perform a simulation in a twin environment, specifically a space that is identical in some way to the actual live environment (for example a mockup of a store etc.). The additional element that this process is computer implemented and the simulation is in the animated virtual reality environment recite merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
Further the additional element of this environment being the “digital twin” environment results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to digital twin environment rather applicant is merely using digital twin environment as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite the environment is “digital” merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 6, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could perform a simulation in a visual twin environment, specifically a space that is identical in some way to the actual live environment (for example a mockup of a store etc.). The additional element that this process is computer implemented, the simulation is in the animated virtual reality environment, and the simulation is a “digital” twin, merely recite apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 8, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could specifically perform another simulation for another set of parameters or mock up (for example another business report). Further a user could provide input as to which business report (or parameters) to use as broadly claimed. The additional element that this simulation is a virtual reality simulation and the process is computer implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 9, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a user could take parameters to define information in a business report as broadly recited in the claims. Specifically linking the metrics in a report at a certain time of day or years, for example. The additional element that the process is computer implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 10, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could receive a set of parameters for defining a context of the analysis and then perform the analysis based on the parameters. For example receiving parameters related to time and then performing the analysis based on that time parameter. The additional element that the process is computer implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 11, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could derive parameters from a report, for example a user can determine important information from looking at a report as broadly recited in the claims. The additional element that the process is computer implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 12, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could provide interaction in a simulation or provide interaction to determine information to be provided to a simulation and provide contextual analysis on the input. The additional element that instead of this information being provided by a user to for example another user in a simulation, this information is provided by “one or more sensors” that detect human interactions including “a gesture, body language, a voice command, and a visual touch” and the contextual analysis is being performed using “artificial intelligence” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement in sensors in the virtual reality environment rather applicant is merely using sensors as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite detecting human interactions including “a gesture, body language, a voice command, and a visual touch” and the contextual analysis is being performed using “acritical intelligence” merely results in merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
Further the additional element that the method is instead being computer implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 13, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could receive parameters and update a simulation based on the parameters. The additional element that the simulation is an animated virtual reality simulation and the process is computer implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 14, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically receive specifications of the physical environment, and analyze the report to select information relevant to the physical environment. Further the additional element that the method is instead being computer implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 15, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could collaborate with multiple users in a simulation. The additional elements that the process is “computer implemented”, the simulation is output to an “animated reality device” and the simulation is an “animated virtual reality simulation” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 16, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could allow users to participate or see various parts of the simulation or simulation aspects based on permissions levels. The additional elements that the process is “computer implemented”, the simulation is output to an “animated reality device” and the simulation is an “animated virtual reality simulation” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 17, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could allow users to participate or see various parts of the simulation or simulation aspects based on permissions levels and also allow a user to communicate or collaborate with other users based on permissions. The additional elements that the process is “computer implemented”, the simulation is output to an “animated reality device” and the simulation is an “animated virtual reality simulation” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 18, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could provide an indicator in a simulation environment of where a user or product is in the environment as broadly recited in the claims. The additional element that the process is computer implemented and the simulation is “an animated virtual reality simulation” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
Further the additional element that the user or item is an “avatar” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to avatars in the virtual reality environment rather applicant is merely using as avatars in the virtual reality environment as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further here, as broadly recite in the claims instead of performing a function a human or humans could perform, this function being performed by “avatars” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 19, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could receive parameters relating to a business (business intelligence report), determine the effects on the physical environment, and create a simulation based on the analysis of the report and output or provide the simulation for display, as broadly recited in the claims. Further the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could perform a simulation at a different time like the future, for example monitoring sales or number of customers in the morning vs the evening.
The additional elements that these limitations that as broadly recited in the claims could be performed by a human or humans that instead is being performed by software executing on a computer “a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to:” , the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, by “the computer”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to virtual reality rather applicant is merely using animated virtual reality as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite being performed by software executing on a computer “a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to:” , by “the computer”, the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 20, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could receive parameters relating to a business (business intelligence report), determine the effects on the physical environment, and create a simulation based on the analysis of the report and output or provide the simulation for display, as broadly recited in the claims. Further the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human or humans could perform a simulation at a different time like the future, for example monitoring sales or number of customers in the morning vs the evening.
The additional elements that these limitations that as broadly recited in the claims could be performed by a human or human that instead is being performed by software executing on a computer “a processor; and logic integrated with the processor, executable by the processor, or integrated with and executable by the processor, the logic being configured to” , the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to virtual reality rather applicant is merely using animated virtual reality as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite being performed by software executing on a computer “a processor; and logic integrated with the processor, executable by the processor, or integrated with and executable by the processor, the logic being configured to” , the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 21, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically performing a simulation related to a retail store, and changing the time for the simulation based on input derived from monitoring the users interaction with the simulation, where updating the simulation corresponds to depicting a flow of customers along a future timeline. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that the simulation is “virtual reality” and “virtual” and that the method is computer implemented merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 22, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically performing a simulation related to a predictive simulation of products moving along a production line at a time in the future when the information of the business intelligence report was collected, where the business intelligence report includes information about machine health and productively issues in terms of capacity of a conveyer system of the production line, and the predictive simulation includes a visual simulation of a prediction in product throughout for a period of time in the future timeline. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that the simulation is “animated virtual reality” and that the method is computer implemented merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 23, the claims recite limitations or human activities a human or humans could perform specifically detecting one or more interactions selected from a group of body language and touch. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that the information is detected via “body sensors” and the information or simulation is “virtual” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as recited above under the practical application step.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmirler et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0130260) further in view of Friman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0135947).
As per claim 1, Schmirler et al. teaches A computer-implemented method, comprising: (see paragraph 0066, Examiner’s note: one or more processors perform the methods disclosed here).
analyzing a business intelligence report for correlating information therein with a physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment; creating an animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment, as affected by the information, based on results of the analysis of the business intelligence report; (see paragraphs 0062, 0076, and 0164-0167, Examiner’s note: simulation to estimate information related to plant or machine operations, where this information can include map data and information from historical data).
outputting the animated virtual reality simulation to a virtual reality device (see paragraph 0050, Examiner’s note: presenting Virtual reality presentations to a wearable user device).
receiving user input changing a factor for the animated virtual reality simulation; and updating the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed factor (see paragraphs 0052, 0175-0177, and 0179, Examiner’s note: change in a user’s position).
Schmirler et al. does not expressly teach one of the parameters for the simulation is time or more specifically as recited in the claims changing a time factor along a future timeline; and updating the simulation to correspond to the changed time factor.
However, Friman et al. which is in the art of simulations (see abstract and paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches one of the parameters for the simulation is time or more specifically as recited in the claims changing a time factor along a future timeline; and updating the simulation to correspond to the changed time factor (see paragraphs 0043 and Figures 3A-4, Examiner’s note: one of the factors that can be input by the user is time and the user can see the results of the simulation in the future).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schmirler et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Friman et al with the motivation of providing a way to determine future trends to make predictions or determinations of problematic situations (see Friman et al. paragraph 0043), when making changes in the simulation to update results is known (see Schmirler et al. paragraphs 0052, 0175-0177, and 0179).
As per claim 2, Schmirler et al teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation includes a simulation of the physical environment at a time corresponding to when at least some of the information of the business intelligence report was collected. (see paragraphs 0062, 0076, 0096, and 0164-0167, Examiner’s note; simulation to estimate information related to plant or machine operations, where this information can include map data and information from historical/past data).
As per claim 5, Schmirler et al teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation includes a digital twin of the physical environment upon which the information is based (see paragraphs 0164 and 0166, Examiner’s note: teaches using a digital twin in the VR/AR model).
As per claim 6, Schmirler et al teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation includes a combination of visual and digital twin simulations of the physical environment upon which the information is based. (see paragraphs 0164, 0166, and Figures 7-11, Examiner’s note: teaches using a digital twin in the VR/AR model).
As per claim 8, Schmirler et al teaches
comprising receiving input indicating a selection of a different business intelligence report; analyzing the different business intelligence report for correlating information therein with the physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment: creating a second animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment as affected by the information of the different business report; and outputting the second animated virtual reality simulation (see paragraph 0052-0053 and 0055-0057, Examiner’s note: teaches VR/AR presentations can be customized based on a user’s current context, line of sight, type of device being used, relevant subsets of data available data, or other relevant information).
As per claim 9, Schmirler et al teaches
comprising receiving a set of parameters for defining the information in the business intelligence report. (see paragraph 0052-0053 and 0055-0057, Examiner’s note: teaches VR/AR presentations can be customized based on a user’s current context, line of sight, type of device being used, relevant subsets of data available data, or other relevant information).
As per claim 10, Schmirler et al teaches
comprising receiving a set of parameters for defining a context of the analysis, and performing the analysis based on the set of parameters. (see paragraph 0052-0053 and 0055-0057, Examiner’s note: teaches VR/AR presentations can be customized based on a user’s current context, line of sight, type of device being used, relevant subsets of data available data, or other relevant information).
As per claim 11, Schmirler et al teaches
wherein the set of parameters is derived from a selection of particular information from the business intelligence report to analyze. (see paragraph 0052-0053 and 0055-0057, Examiner’s note: teaches VR/AR presentations can be customized based on a user’s current context, line of sight, type of device being used, relevant subsets of data available data, or other relevant information).
As per claim 12, Schmirler et al teaches
wherein the set of parameters is based, at least in part, on input derived from one or more human interactions selected from the group consisting of: a gesture, body language, a voice command, and a virtual touch, And further comprising using artificial intelligence to perform contextual analysis on the input (see paragraphs 0051, 0063, 0095, 0097-0098, and 0110-0111, Examiner’s note: only one of the above alternatives is required by the claims, but at least gesture, voice command, and virtual touch is taught in the above parameters).
As per claim 13, Schmirler et al teaches
wherein the set of parameters is received during the outputting of the animated virtual reality simulation, wherein the animated virtual reality simulation is updated based on the set of parameters. (see paragraph 0052-0053 and 0055-0057, Examiner’s note: teaches VR/AR presentations can be customized based on a user’s current context, line of sight, type of device being used, relevant subsets of data available data, or other relevant information).
As per claim 14, Schmirler et al teaches
comprising receiving specification of the physical environment, wherein the analysis includes selection of information in the business intelligence report relevant to the specified physical environment. (see paragraph 0052-0053, 0055-0057, 0164, and 0166, Examiner’s note: teaches VR/AR presentations can be customized based on a user’s current context, line of sight, type of device being used, relevant subsets of data available data, or other relevant information (see paragraphs 0052-0053 and 0055-0057)). Further paragraphs 0164 and 0166, teaches using a digital twin in the VR/AR model, which is a twin of a physical space).
As per claim 15, Schmirler et al teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation is also output to a second animated virtual reality device for allowing collaboration of multiple users in the animated virtual reality simulation (see paragraphs 0157-0158, Examiner’s note: collaboration between users).
As per claim 16, Schmirler et al teaches.
wherein portions of the animated virtual reality simulation output to the second animated virtual reality device are removed based on a permission level of the user associated with the second virtual reality device (see paragraphs 0061, 0074, 0096, 0119, and 0162, Examiner’s note: teaches roles and corresponding access levels).
As per claim 17, Schmirler et al teaches
comprising: performing a second analysis of the business intelligence report based on a permission level of a second user; creating a second animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment as affected by the information based on results of the second analysis; and outputting the animated virtual reality simulation to a second virtual reality device for allowing collaboration of multiple users in the animated virtual reality simulations. (see paragraphs 0061, 0074, 0096, 0119, 0157-0158, and 0162, Examiner’s note: teaches roles and corresponding access levels (see paragraphs 0061, 0074, 0096, 0119, and 0162). Further teaches in paragraphs 0157-0158 allowing collaboration between users).
As per claim 18, Schmirler et al. teaches
wherein avatars of the users are generated and presented in both of the animated virtual reality simulation (see paragraphs 0050,0053, and 0157-0158 Examiner’s note: presenting avatars in simulations).
As per claim 19, Schmirler et al. teaches A computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to: (see paragraphs 0066 and 0210, Examiner’s note: readable medium executing by a processor performing the functions, where the readable medium can include things like CD).
analyze, by the computer, a business intelligence report for correlating information therein with a physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment; create, by the computer, an animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment, as affected by the information, based on results of the analysis of the business intelligence report; (see paragraphs 0062, 0076, and 0164-0167, Examiner’s note: simulation to estimate information related to plant or machine operations, where this information can include map data and information from historical data).
output, by the computer, the animated virtual reality simulation to a virtual reality device. (see paragraph 0050, Examiner’s note: presenting Virtual reality presentations to a wearable user device).
Receive, by the computer, user input changing a factor for the animated virtual reality simulation; and update, by the computer, the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed factor (see paragraphs 0052, 0175-0177, and 0179, Examiner’s note: change in a user’s position).
Schmirler et al. does not expressly teach one of the parameters for the simulation is time or more specifically as recited in the claims changing a time factor along a future timeline; and updating the simulation to correspond to the changed time factor.
However, Friman et al. which is in the art of simulations (see abstract and paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches one of the parameters for the simulation is time or more specifically as recited in the claims changing a time factor along a future timeline; and updating the simulation to correspond to the changed time factor (see paragraphs 0043 and Figures 3A-4, Examiner’s note: one of the factors that can be input by the user is time and the user can see the results of the simulation in the future).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schmirler et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Friman et al with the motivation of providing a way to determine future trends to make predictions or determinations of problematic situations (see Friman et al. paragraph 0043), when making changes in the simulation to update results is known (see Schmirler et al. paragraphs 0052, 0175-0177, and 0179).
As per claim 20, Schmirler et al. teaches A system, comprising: a processor; and logic integrated with the processor, executable by the processor, or integrated with and executable by the processor, the logic being configured to: (see paragraphs 0066 and 0210, Examiner’s note: readable medium executing by a processor performing the functions, where the readable medium can include things like CD).
analyze a business intelligence report for correlating information therein with a physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment; create an animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment, as affected by the information, based on results of the analysis of the business intelligence report; (see paragraphs 0062, 0076, and 0164-0167, Examiner’s note: simulation to estimate information related to plant or machine operations, where this information can include map data and information from historical data).
output the animated virtual reality simulation to a virtual reality device. (see paragraph 0050, Examiner’s note: presenting Virtual reality presentations to a wearable user device).
receive user input changing a factor for the animated virtual reality simulation; and update the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed factor (see paragraphs 0052, 0175-0177, and 0179, Examiner’s note: change in a user’s position).
Schmirler et al. does not expressly teach one of the parameters for the simulation is time or more specifically as recited in the claims changing a time factor along a future timeline; and updating the simulation to correspond to the changed time factor.
However, Friman et al. which is in the art of simulations (see abstract and paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches one of the parameters for the simulation is time or more specifically as recited in the claims changing a time factor along a future timeline; and updating the simulation to correspond to the changed time factor (see paragraphs 0043 and Figures 3A-4, Examiner’s note: one of the factors that can be input by the user is time and the user can see the results of the simulation in the future).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schmirler et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Friman et al with the motivation of providing a way to determine future trends to make predictions or determinations of problematic situations (see Friman et al. paragraph 0043), when making changes in the simulation to update results is known (see Schmirler et al. paragraphs 0052, 0175-0177, and 0179).
As per claim 22, Schmirler et al. teaches
Wherein the animated virtual reality simulation includes a predictive simulation of products moving along a production line at a time relative to when the information of the business report was collected, wherein the information in the business intelligence report includes information about machine health and productively issues in terms of capacity of a conveyor system of the production line, wherein the predictive simulation includes a visual simulation of a reduction in product throughput for a period of time (see paragraph 0056, 0136, 0161, Examiner’s note: simulation information related to conveyor belt system as well as notes for future operators).
Schmirler et al. does not expressly teach (1) a time in the future and for a period of time in the future timeline
However, Friman et al. which is in the art of simulations (see abstract and paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches (1) a time in the future and for a period of time in the future timeline (see paragraphs 0043 and Figures 3A-4, Examiner’s note: one of the factors that can be input by the user is time and the user can see the results of the simulation in the future).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schmirler et al. in view of Friman et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Friman et al with the motivation of providing a way to determine future trends to make predictions or determinations of problematic situations (see Friman et al. paragraph 0043), when making changes in the simulation to update results is known (see Schmirler et al. paragraphs 0052, 0175-0177, and 0179).
As per claim 23, Schmirler et al. teaches
Wherein the set of parameters is based, at least in part, on output from one or more sensors detecting one or more human interactions selected from the group consisting of: body language, and a virtual touch (see paragraphs 0051, 0063, 0095, 0097-0098, and 0110-0111, Examiner’s note: only one of the above alternatives is required by the claims, but at least gesture (which can be interpreted as a body language as broadly recited in the claims) and virtual touch (which can be interpreted as the voice command in Schmirler et al.) is taught in the above parameters).
Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmirler et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0130260) further in view of Friman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0135947) further in view of Caution et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0024907).
As per claim 21, Schmirler et al. teaches
Wherein the physical environment corresponds to a business retail environment like a factory, wherein the input changing the factor for the animated virtual reality simulation is based on input derived from monitoring the user’s interaction with the virtual reality simulation, wherein updating the animated virtual reality simulation correspond to the changed factor includes depicting a virtual flow of business processes of people along the timeline (see paragraphs 0046, 0065, 0087, 0089, 0104, 0129, 0134, and 0141, Examiner’s note: workflow and maintenance issues (see paragraph 0065). Further teaches capturing and presenting timeline information (see paragraph 0046,0089, 0104, 0134). Further teaches changing information in the simulation (see paragraph 0087, 0129, 0141).
Schmirler et al. does not expressly teach (1) input changing the time factor and (2) the environment is a retail store and results of the simulation are flow of customers along the future timeline
However, Friman et al. which is in the art of simulations (see abstract and paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches (1) input changing the time factor (see paragraphs 0043 and Figures 3A-4, Examiner’s note: one of the factors that can be input by the user is time and the user can see the results of the simulation in the future).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schmirler et al. in view of Friman et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Friman et al with the motivation of providing a way to determine future trends to make predictions or determinations of problematic situations (see Friman et al. paragraph 0043), when making changes in the simulation to update results is known (see Schmirler et al. paragraphs 0052, 0175-0177, and 0179).
It is noted that further dependent claim 22 specifically discloses a different environment for the simulation, of a production line. Schmirler et al. clearly teaches this alternative environment of a production line and tracking processes of machines like conveyors (See claim 22) and people. Schmirler et al. in view of Friman et al. does not expressly teach the claimed environment of a retail store and business process tracking customers in this separate dependent claim or more specifically (2) the environment is a retail store and results of the simulation are flow of customers along the future timeline, as claimed.
However, Caution et al. which is in the art of predicting needs at a future time (simulations) period based on collected and analyzed data (see abstract) teaches this other business process tracking claimed environment of a retail store or more specifically (2) the environment is a retail store and results of the simulation are flow of customers along the future timeline (see paragraph 0029, 0063, and Figures 4-5, Examiner’s note: detect a flow of customer and predict a decrease or increase at a future time at a store, where the users purchase information (see paragraphs 0029, 0063). Further teaches the terminals needed in a certain time period).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schmirler et al. in view of Friman et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Caution et al. with the motivation of simulating information in another known environment for simulation and predictions (see Caution et al. paragraph 0029, 0063, and Figures 4-5), when performing the functions of simulations in various environment is known (see Schmirler et al. paragraph 0050).
It is noted, while the Examiner interprets the above combination of Schmirler et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0130260) further in view of Friman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0135947) further in view of Caution et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0024907) to teach new claim 21, in the efforts of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided a second set of rejections (alternative rejections) for the claim set of claims 1 and 21, it is noted this is based on Applicant’s amendment adding claim 21, which discusses using the generic simulation (without a field of use) in claim 1 in a different field of use (retail environment with customers) then new claim 22 (which discusses a field of use of a production line with a conveyor system) and that of the previously cited Schmirler et al. reference in the Non-Final Office Action.
Claim(s) 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Caution et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0024907) further in view of Friman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0135947)
As per claim 1, Caution et al. teaches A computer-implemented method, comprising: (see paragraph 0005, Examiners note: method for generating recommendations based on a plurality of sensors).
analyzing a business intelligence report for correlating information therein with a physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment; creating an animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment, as affected by the information, based on results of the analysis of the business intelligence report; outputting the animated virtual reality simulation to a virtual reality device; changing a time factor for the animated virtual reality simulation along a future timeline; and updating the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed time factor. (see paragraphs 0003, 0034-0035, and Figures 4-5, Examiner’s note: teaches collecting information and outputting the results of the environment on a virtual display of a terminal of a GUI to help allocate resources in a specified future time period. Further this output is shown on Figures 4-5).
Caution does not expressly teach the user provides input for changing the time or more specifically as recited in the claims receiving user input for changing the time.
However, Friman et al. which is in the art of simulations (see abstract and paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches user provides input for changing the time or more specifically as recited in the claims receiving user input for changing the time (see paragraphs 0043 and Figures 3A-4, Examiner’s note: one of the factors that can be input by the user is time and the user can see the results of the simulation in the future).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Caution with the aforementioned teachings from Friman et al with the motivation of providing a way for a user to pick a time to determine future trends to make predictions or determinations of problematic situations (see Friman et al. paragraph 0043), when seeing changes or predictions for future specified times is known (see Caution et al. paragraphs 0003, 0034-0035, and Figures 4-5).
As per claim 21, Caution et al. teaches
wherein the physical environment corresponds to a retail store, wherein updating the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed time factor includes depicting a virtual flow of customers along the future timeline. (see paragraph 0029, 0063, and Figures 4-5, Examiner’s note: detect a flow of customer and predict a decrease or increase at a future time at a store, where the users purchase information (see paragraphs 0029, 0063). Further teaches the terminals needed in a certain time period).
Caution does not expressly teach the user provides input for changing the time or more specifically as recited in the claims wherein the input changing the time factor for the animated virtual reality simulation is based on input derived from monitoring the user's interaction with the virtual reality simulation.
However, Friman et al. which is in the art of simulations (see abstract and paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches wherein the input changing the time factor for the animated virtual reality simulation is based on input derived from monitoring the user's interaction with the virtual reality simulation (see paragraphs 0043 and Figures 3A-4, Examiner’s note: one of the factors that can be input by the user is time and the user can see the results of the simulation in the future).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Caution in view of Friman et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Friman et al with the motivation of providing a way for a user to pick a time to determine future trends to make predictions or determinations of problematic situations (see Friman et al. paragraph 0043), when seeing changes or predictions for future specified times is known (see Caution et al. paragraphs 0003, 0034-0035, and Figures 4-5).
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wilkinson (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): WO 2021/113896) which is in the art simulations teaches being provided updated simulations based on manipulating a time (see pages 3 and 28-29)
Brewer et al. (United States Patent Application publication Number: US 2019/0251750) using virtual reality to simulate an experience in the real world (see abstract and Figures 7E-7H)
Kanski et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0383611) teaches using a 3D virtual model using a rendered digital twin to monitor an item (see abstract and Figures 8-13)
Cella et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0036302) teaches using a digital twin simulation system for simulation that allows for collaboration between users (see abstract and paragraph 1103)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights