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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
The earliest priority date are filings received 11/04/2022.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 16 have been amended and claim 21 newly added.
Claims 2-7, 9-15 & 17-21 are dependent claims of either independent claims 1, 8 or 16.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the Applicant contends the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite specific GUI interactions and virtual reality elements. This is not persuasive. The claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to facilitating a peer-to-peer transfer between users, including determining authorization based on proximity and displaying transfer-related information. Such activity constitutes certain methods of organizing human activity, including financial transactions and interpersonal interactions, which are recognized abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2).
While applicant argues that the claims recite specific interactions within a virtual reality environment, these features merely define the context in which the abstract idea is performed and do not change the underlying focus of the claims.
The recitation of a “virtual reality environment,” “graphical user interface,” and “virtual items” merely reflects the environment in which the abstract idea is performed, and does not change the fundamental character of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Unlike the claims in Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which were directed to a specific improvement in the manner of displaying and organizing information on a device, the present claims do not recite a particular interface structure or improved interaction technique. Instead, the GUI is used as a tool to present transaction-related information, which does not constitute a technological improvement to the interface itself.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims recite no practical application. Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application based on alleged improvements to graphical user interfaces and virtual reality systems. This argument is not persuasive. The claimed steps of measuring a virtual distance, determining whether thresholds are met, and modifying a graphical user interface to display indicators; amount to collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying results, which courts have consistently held to be abstract. The temporal indicator and animation features constitute mere display of information, which is insufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05 9d).
Applicant’s reliance on USPTO Example 37 is also not persuasive. In Example 37, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in Gui functionality, namely the automatic relocation of cons based on usage patterns. In contrast, the present claims do not improve how the GUI operates, but instead use the GUI to display information related to a transaction. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to VR rendering technology, or a specific technical solution to a technical problem. Instead, the GUI is used as a tool to convey information and facilitate user interaction, which is routine. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similarly, Applicant’s reliance on Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys. Inc., 965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020), is unavailing. In that case, the claims were directed to a specific technological improvement in network traffic analysis. Here, the claims do not improve computer functionality or data processing techniques, but instead apply generic computing components to perform a transactional process.
Under Step 2B, there is no inventive concept. Applicant argues that the claimed limitations are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, citing Berkheimer. This argument is not persuasive. The additional elements, including generic processors, and memory; graphical user interfaces; displaying indicators and animations; evaluating proximity and thresholds; are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. The claimed measuring, determining, and modifying steps represent generic data processing and display operations, which courts have consistently found insufficient to confer eligibility. See Alice; Electric Power Group.
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), does not require da different result. The present claims recite generic computer components performing conventional functions such as receiving, analyzing, and displaying data. There is no indication that these elements, individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument that the claim recites detailed steps does not establish an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit has made clear that limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or adding routine steps does not make the claim patent-eligible. Further, the alleged improvement, facilitating transfers using proximity and GUI indicators reflects an improvement in user experience or business logic, not an improvement to computer technology itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a); see also SAP America.
Consistent with Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the claims are directed to collecting information, analyzing that information, and displaying results. Such activities have been found to be abstract and, when implemented using generic computing components, do not constitute an inventive concept.
Applicant’s reliance on Data Engine and GUI-related cases is misplaced. Unlike those cases, the present claims do not recite a specific improvement to GUI functionality, but instead use a GUI as a vehicle for presenting information and executing an abstract concept.
Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claims do not recite a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, but instead invoke generic computing components to implement an abstract idea. The additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and merely apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore maintained.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claims 1, 8 & 17 are directed to a system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for currency transfer using virtual or augmented reality environments, which is a commercial or legal interaction (i.e. sales activities, business or behaviors), and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”; and also can concepts performed in the human mind and thus grouped as “Mental processes”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows:
receive a first input indicating a first selection of a first virtual reality item automatically associated with a first account of a first user and a first currency;
receive transfer information comprising an amount to transfer to a second user;
receive a second input indicating a second selection of a second virtual reality item automatically associated with a second account of the second user and a second currency;
determine whether a peer-to-peer transfer is authorized by the first user and the second user by determining whether the first virtual reality item is in proximity to the second virtual reality item by:
measuring, within the first graphical user interface and the second graphical user interface, a virtual distance from the first virtual reality item to the second virtual reality item; and
determining whether the virtual distance is less than a predetermined distance threshold for an amount of time …; and
modifying the first graphical user interface and second graphical user interface, …;
responsive to determining that the peer-to-peer transfer is authorized, initiate the peer-to-peer transfer by:
transmitting first user account information associated with the first account, second user account information associated with the second account, and the transfer information;
responsive to an acceptance of the peer-to-peer transfer, modify the first graphical user interface and the second graphical user interface to display a first graphical indication of the peer-to-peer transfer comprising …
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of receiving, modifying determining, measuring and transmitting data as seen in claim 1. The additional elements (i.e. one or more processors, memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions, a first graphical user interface formatted to display a virtual reality environment on a first user device, and a second graphical user interface formatted to display the virtual reality environment on a second user device) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e.as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communication information over a generic network, see at least Fig.’s 3-5 and ¶¶ [64-71 & 79-84] of the specifications) such that it amounts no more than 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 computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see PEPE 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the steps for receiving and transmitting data are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 8 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than 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 the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the step for receiving transaction details and transmitting data are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 8 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of without significantly more. The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole an in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for currency transfer using virtual or augmented reality environments) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for currency transfer using virtual or augmented reality environments) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696