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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 101 because it provides a technical solution and referenced paragraph [0082] of the instant application and argues that “the claims recite steps related to sharing the unique location IDs with applications or electronic devices by embedding unique location IDs in a virtual environment capture in a standardized format. As such, the independent claims recite steps that enable the development of standardized tools for developers across different platforms to improve development processes, such as visualization tools for crash locations and replay comparison on certain locations. Moreover, the independent claims recite steps that allow applications or devices to analyze location information despite which platform is hosting a virtual environment associated with the virtual environment capture.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as written, involve assigning unique location IDs to virtual environment locations, receiving requests to retrieve these IDs, and sharing them by embedding in a virtual environment capture using a standardized format (platform, title, level, and position identifiers). This can be interpreted as a method of organizing data and facilitating content sharing in a virtual space. Such activities—data assignment, retrieval, and sharing—could be considered a mental process (e.g., a human could conceptually assign and share location identifiers) or a method of organizing human activity (e.g., coordinating location-based content sharing), both of which are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance (e.g., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50). The use of a computer and virtual environment does not inherently remove this abstraction unless it imposes a specific, non-generic technological improvement.
The claims specify a "computer-implemented method" and involve embedding unique location IDs in a "virtual environment capture" with a standardized format. The embedding in a capture and the structured format (including platform, title, level, and position identifiers) suggest a specific application to virtual environments, potentially improving data interoperability or navigation within such systems. However, the claims do not detail a specific technological improvement (e.g., a new algorithm, enhanced rendering technique, or unique data compression method). The use of a "computer" and "platform" is described at a high level, implying generic computer implementation (e.g., standard processing, storage, and networking). The Federal Circuit has found similar claims ineligible when they merely apply an abstract idea on a computer without more (e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where collecting and analyzing data was deemed abstract without a specific technical enhancement).
The claims involve assigning unique IDs, receiving requests, and embedding data in captures—activities that are conventional in virtual environment and database systems. The standardized format (platform, title, level, position) are logical data structuring choices, but no evidence suggests they are unconventional or require more than routine programming. The Federal Circuit has held that merely organizing data in a specific format or using a computer to perform an abstract process does not provide an inventive concept (e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Therefore, the claims do not include an inventive concept beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
1. A computer-implemented method of providing a positioning system for a virtual environment hosted on a platform to enable sharing of content, the computer-implemented method comprising:
assigning, to each of a plurality of locations in the virtual environment, a unique location ID;
receiving a request to retrieve a unique location ID for a location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment; and
sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with an application or an electronic device, wherein sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with the application or the electronic device comprises embedding, in a virtual environment capture, the unique location IDs assigned to locations of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment that are shown in the virtual environment capture, and wherein each unique location ID assigned to each of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment and embedded in the virtual environment capture is a data string in a standardized format that comprises: a platform identifier; a title identifier; a level identifier; and a position identifier, wherein the platform identifier identifies the platform hosting the virtual environment.
16. A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising:
assigning, to each of a plurality of locations in the virtual environment, a unique location ID;
receiving a request to retrieve a unique location ID for a location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment; and
sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with an application or an electronic device, wherein sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with the application or the electronic device comprises embedding, in a virtual environment capture, the unique location IDs assigned to locations of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment that are shown in the virtual environment capture, and wherein each unique location ID assigned to each of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment and embedded in the virtual environment capture is a data string in a standardized format that comprises: a platform identifier; a title identifier; a level identifier; and a position identifier, wherein the platform identifier identifies a platform hosting the virtual environment.
Claim 1 is exemplary to each of the independent claims, as claim 16 recites a system that facilitate substantially the same functional steps as claim 1.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, mental processes includes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and organizing human activity includes at least fundamental economic principles or practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people ( e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
The underlined limitations in claim 1 involves assigning unique location IDs to virtual environment locations, receiving requests to retrieve these IDs, and sharing them by embedding in a virtual environment capture using a standardized format. This can be interpreted as a method of organizing data and facilitating content sharing in a virtual space. Such activities—data assignment, retrieval, and sharing—could be considered a mental process (e.g., a human could conceptually assign and share location identifiers) or a method of organizing human activity (e.g., coordinating location-based content sharing), both of which are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance (e.g., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50). The use of a computer and virtual environment does not inherently remove this abstraction unless it imposes a specific, non-generic technological improvement.
Regarding dependent claims 2-15, each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from at least one of the independent claims identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claims further describe additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e. additional aspects to the mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, the dependent claims merely provide additional rules to be followed, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2a-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-16 do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies 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 (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/ or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claims specify a "computer-implemented method" and involve embedding unique location IDs in a "virtual environment capture" with a standardized format. The embedding in a capture and the structured format (including platform, title, level, and position identifiers) suggest a specific application to virtual environments, potentially improving data interoperability or navigation within such systems. However, the claims do not detail a specific technological improvement (e.g., a new algorithm, enhanced rendering technique, or unique data compression method). The use of a "computer" and "platform" is described at a high level, implying generic computer implementation (e.g., standard processing, storage, and networking). The Federal Circuit has found similar claims ineligible when they merely apply an abstract idea on a computer without more (e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where collecting and analyzing data was deemed abstract without a specific technical enhancement).
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above.
For example, the recitations of utilization of a processor used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computer merely illustrates the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the device, method, and medium, the extent to which a computer to the performance of the device. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the "inventive concept" necessary for patent-eligibility. "[I]f a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement]' an abstract idea 'on ... a computer,' ... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
The standardized format (platform, title, level, position) are logical data structuring choices, but no evidence suggests they are unconventional or require more than routine programming. The Federal Circuit has held that merely organizing data in a specific format or using a computer to perform an abstract process does not provide an inventive concept (e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Arguments are related to newly add limitations. Please review updated rejection below as response.
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 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) 1-7, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starich (US 2021/0275922 A1) in view of Atli (US 2020/0338456 A1).
1. Starich discloses a computer-implemented method of providing a positioning system for a virtual environment hosted on a platform to enable sharing of content, the computer-implemented method comprising:
assigning, to each of a plurality of locations in the virtual environment, a unique location ID; receiving a request to retrieve a unique location ID for a location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment; and sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with an application or an electronic device, wherein sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with the application or the electronic device comprises embedding, in a virtual environment capture, the unique location IDs assigned to locations of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment that are shown in the virtual environment capture (i.e. the metadata is obtained by an application executing over an operating system of the client device…the metadata is embedded in the video stream itself, as certain video formats provide additional fields which can be enabled and utilized for transmission of the metadata) [0039], wherein each unique location ID assigned to each of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment and embedded in the virtual environment capture is a data string in a standardized format that comprises: a title identifier; a level identifier; and a position identifier (i.e. player can share its location within the virtual environment comprising a data string/metadata identifying all necessary information to identify the player’s position, progress and level in a gaming title on the gaming platform), [0007], [0012], [0032], [0039], [0048], [0076], [0092], [0095]-[0096].
Starich may not expressly disclose each unique location ID assigned to each of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment is a data string in a standardized format that comprises: a platform identifier; a title identifier; a level identifier; and a position identifier, wherein the platform identifier identifies the platform hosting the virtual environment.
Atli discloses each unique location ID assigned to each of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment is a data string in a standardized format that comprises: a platform identifier; a title identifier; a level identifier; and a position identifier, wherein the platform identifier identifies the platform hosting the virtual environment [0051], [0064], [0075], [0083], [0091]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Starich with Atli and would have been motivated to do so to share the platform the player is playing on.
2. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the data string in the standardized format comprises the following cascaded string: [platform identifier]/[title identifier]/[level identifier]/[position identifier]; however, such formatting would be obvious to person of ordinary skilled in the art to implement as it involves only routine skill for organizing data.
3-4. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment is a location of a user within the virtual environment, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: monitoring the location of the user within the virtual environment, storing the unique location ID corresponding to the location of the user within the virtual environment and periodically updating the unique location ID corresponding to the location of the user within the virtual environment based on a current location of the user within the virtual environment (i.e. the system auto-saves the progress of the game, including the location of the player), Starich, [0048].
5. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the request to retrieve the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment is a request to retrieve the unique location ID corresponding to the location of the user within the virtual environment, Starich [0007]-[0012], [0032].
6. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving or capturing a video of the virtual environment and embedding in the video the unique location IDs assigned to a subset of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment that are shown in the video, Starich [0038]-[0039].
7. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the unique location IDs assigned to the subset of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment that are shown in the video are provided as an array of the unique location IDs assigned to the subset of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment, each unique location ID within the array having an associated timestamp, Starich [0047]-[0048].
9. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with the application or the electronic device further comprises embedding the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment into a weblink or hyperlink, Atli [0051], [0075], [0083].
10. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing a screenshot of the virtual environment at the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment, wherein sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment to the application or the electronic device further comprises embedding the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment into a saved screenshot file, Starich [0053].
11. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment is embedded into an Exif or a comment data section of the saved screenshot file (i.e. via metadata/visual tag), Starich [0053].
12. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein a screenshot viewer is configured to: read the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment from the saved screenshot file; request visualization parameters from the platform based on the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment; and render the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment where the screenshot was taken using the visualization parameters, Starich [0053]-[0055].
13-14. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: sharing with the application or the electronic device, visualization data representing the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment together with the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment, wherein the visualization data comprises a 3D mesh of at least a portion of a level of the virtual environment associated with the level identifier in the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment, Starich [0049], [0051].
15. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the virtual environment is a 2D or 3D virtual world or a metaverse (i.e. virtual environment of a video game), Starich [0010], [0016].
16. Starich and Atli disclose system, comprising: a processor; and a memory including executable instructions that, as a result of execution by the processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising: assigning, to each of a plurality of locations in the virtual environment, a unique location ID; receiving a request to retrieve a unique location ID for a location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment; and sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with an application or an electronic device, wherein sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with the application or the electronic device comprises embedding, in a virtual environment capture, the unique location IDs assigned to locations of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment that are shown in the virtual environment capture, and wherein each unique location ID assigned to each of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment and embedded in the virtual environment capture is a data string in a standardized format that comprises: a platform identifier; a title identifier; a level identifier; and a position identifier, wherein the platform identifier identifies a platform hosting the virtual environment as similarly discussed above (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starich (US 2021/0275922 A1) and Atli (US 2020/0338456 A1) as applied above and further in view of Culibrk (US 10,606,683 B1).
8. Starich and Atli disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein sharing the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment with the application or the electronic device comprises embedding the unique location ID for the location of the plurality of locations in the virtual environment into a crash report to facilitate identification of a problem at the location of the plurality of location in the virtual environment. However, providing the location of the crash in a crash report is notoriously well known in the art as evidenced by Culibrk (col. 5, lines 7-19), (col. 9, lines 55-59). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Starich with Culibrk and would have been motivated to do so to allow the player to report a crash in the game.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715