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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a computer system, comprising: a memory in communication with a processor, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to execute steps. The limitation of maintain a virtual environment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting system, memory and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the system, memory and processor language, maintain in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally thinking about a virtual image. Similarly, the limitations of: manage, map and determine are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a few additional elements – system, memory and processor. The system, memory and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does 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 system, memory and processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2019/0333404 A1 to Bicanic et al. (hereinafter “Bicanic”).
Concerning claim 1, Bicanic discloses a computer system, comprising:
a memory in communication with a processor, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor (paragraphs [0112]-[0120]) to:
(a) maintain a virtual environment (paragraph [0040]);
(b) manage a virtual asset within the virtual environment (paragraphs [0040], [0095]-[0106]);
(c) map a geospatial position of a real vehicle into a position within the virtual environment representative of the geospatial position (paragraphs [0031], [0040], [0095]-[0106]); and
(d) determine a measurement between the position of the real vehicle in the virtual environment to the virtual asset (paragraphs [0071]-[0087]);
wherein one or more attributes of the virtual asset are controlled by a user playing a game comprising the virtual environment and wherein the user controls the virtual asset with respect to a virtual representation of the real vehicle ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claims 2 and 11, Bicanic discloses wherein the real vehicle is a car (paragraphs [0041], [0071]).
Concerning claims 3 and 12, Bicanic discloses wherein the real vehicle is operated by a driver (paragraphs [0040], [0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 4, Bicanic discloses wherein a viewing angle provided to the user is determined by a virtual line-of-sight determined by a straight line between the virtual asset and the virtual representation of the real vehicle (paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
Concerning claim 5, Bicanic discloses wherein a user's view of the virtual representation of the real vehicle is obstructed when another virtual asset or virtual representative of another real vehicle is in the virtual line-of-sight (paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
Concerning claim 6, Bicanic discloses, further comprising a second virtual asset controlled by a second user in the virtual environment, wherein an interaction between the virtual asset and the second virtual asset results in a disruption in the control of at least one of the virtual asset and the second virtual asset ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 7, Bicanic discloses, wherein the interaction is a collision ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 8, Bicanic discloses, wherein an interaction between the virtual asset and the virtual representation of the real vehicle results in a disruption in the control of the virtual asset ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 9, Bicanic discloses, wherein the interaction is a collision ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached on 571-272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715