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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 3/30/26. Claim 1 is amended, claims 2, 3, 10-13, and 16 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-9, 14, 15, and 17-23 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/30/26 has been entered.
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, 4-9, 14, 15, and 17-23 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 for enabling a user to participate virtually in a real event. The limitation of participate virtually in a real event, 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, input and display nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the system, input and display language, participate in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally thinking about a virtual image while being present in a real event. Similarly, the limitations of: comprising 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, input and display. The system, input and display 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, input and display 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 4-9, 14, 15, and 17-23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 14, 15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a user” in line 31 which renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether this is referring to a user recited in claim 1 or a different user. Claims 4-9, 14, 15, and 17-23 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 14, 15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2019/0333404 A1 to Bicanic et al. (hereinafter “Bicanic”) in view of US Publication No. 2019/0101976 A1 to Reichow et al. (hereinafter “Reichow”).
Concerning claim 1, Bicanic discloses a computer system for enabling a user to participate virtually in a real event, said real event involving a real environment with at least one real participant having a geospatial location, orientation and movement in said real environment (paragraphs [0112]-[0120]), said system comprising:
a computer content presentation system for generating a virtual environment corresponding to said real environment (paragraphs [0112]-[0120]);
wherein said virtual environment also comprises a virtual object corresponding to a user in said virtual environment, said virtual object having a geospatial location, orientation, and movement in said virtual environment, said geospatial location, orientation, and movement of said virtual object in said virtual environment being independent of said geospatial location, orientation, and movement of said avatar in said virtual environment (paragraphs [0031], [0040], [0095]-[0106]);
wherein said virtual object has a field of view in said virtual environment, said field of view depending on at least said geospatial location and orientation of said virtual object in said virtual environment (paragraphs [0071]-[0087], [0095]-[0106]);
a display providing a user with said field of view of said virtual environment and user input device for controlling said virtual object in said virtual environment (paragraphs [0071]-[0087], [0095]-[0106]).
Bicanic discloses seeing other avatars in the game (paragraphs [0110], [0111]), and Bicanic discloses wherein the real vehicle is a car and said real environment is a racetrack (paragraphs [0041], [0042], [0071]), however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Reichow discloses at least one real participant operating a real vehicle on a real track; tracking and prediction system configured to estimate a near-future geospatial location, orientation, and movement of said at least one real participant (paragraphs [0048], [0069]-[0078], [0084]-[0094]); wherein the virtual environment comprises a virtual track corresponding to geospatially mapped references of said real track (paragraphs [0004], [0019], [0032], [0059], [0098]); wherein said virtual environment comprising an avatar corresponding to said at least one real participant, said avatar having a geospatial location, orientation, and movement in said virtual environment corresponding to said near-future geospatial location, orientation, and movement of said at least one real participant in said real environment (paragraphs [0020], [0045]-[0048], [0098]); and on a geospatial location of the user, an on an orientation display; wherein said computer presentation system is configured to render content based on said near-future geospatial location, orientation, and movement and to present said content at a predicted time such that the avatar aligns with the real vehicle when the real vehicle is visible to the user (paragraphs [0048], [0069]-[0078], [0084]-[0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of virtual data in a near-future geospatial location as disclosed by Reichow in the system of Bicanic in order to create a more stimulating gaming system.
Concerning claim 4, Bicanic discloses wherein said field of view is determined by a virtual line-of-sight determined by a straight line between the virtual object and the avatar (paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
Concerning claim 5, Bicanic discloses wherein said a-user's field of view of the avatar is obstructed when another virtual object of another user or an avatar of another real participant is in the virtual line-of-sight (paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
Concerning claim 6, Bicanic discloses further comprising a second virtual object controlled by a second user in the virtual environment, wherein an interaction between the virtual object and the second virtual object results in a disruption in the control of at least one of the virtual object or the second virtual object ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 7, Bicanic discloses wherein the interaction is contact ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 8, Bicanic discloses wherein an interaction between the virtual object and the avatar results in a disruption in the control of the virtual object ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 9, Bicanic discloses wherein the interaction is contact ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 14, Bicanic discloses wherein said geospatial location and movement of said virtual object in said virtual environment is at least partially controlled by said user (paragraphs [0071]-[0087]).
Concerning claim 15, Bicanic discloses wherein said field of view also depends on orientation of the user's eyes (paragraph [0045]).
Concerning claim 17, Bicanic discloses wherein said display is integrated with headgear (paragraph [0045]).
Concerning claim 18, Bicanic discloses wherein said display is a see-through display (paragraph [0045]).
Concerning claim 19, Bicanic discloses seeing other avatars in the game (paragraphs [0110], [0111]), however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Reichow discloses wherein said at least one real participant comprising multiple real participants corresponding to multiple avatars (paragraphs [0020], [0045]-[0048], [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of virtual avatars as disclosed by Reichow in the system of Bicanic in order to create a more stimulating gaming system.
Concerning claim 20, Bicanic discloses wherein at least one other virtual object comprising at least one of an obstacle, guardrail, curb, wall, or another vehicle ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 21, Bicanic discloses wherein contact between said virtual object with said at least one other virtual object results in disruption of user's control of said virtual object ([0095]-[0106]).
Concerning claim 22, Bicanic discloses wherein said user input device is a racecar simulator ([0041], [0042], [0095]-[0106]). Reichow discloses the vehicle may be coupled to a track (paragraphs [0004], [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of virtual avatars as disclosed by Reichow in the system of Bicanic in order to create a more stimulating gaming system.
Concerning claim 23, Bicanic lacks disclosing, however, Reichow discloses wherein said computer content presentation system is configured for at least a drive mode or a follow mode, in said drive mode, said user controls said virtual object in said virtual environment, and in said follow mode, said virtual object is automatically controlled to follow behind said avatar (paragraphs [0004], [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of virtual avatars as disclosed by Reichow in the system of Bicanic in order to create a more stimulating gaming system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection. The rejection has been updated above to reflect the newly amended claim language. The claims require more computer components (e.g., memory, processor, network, server, specific sensors, cameras) in order to overcome the outstanding rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot based on the citations provided to address the claim amendments.
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
Prosecution Insights