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 1-20 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process) and claim 10 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “facilitating users to learn training pets,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“receiving…a request from a user to learn training a real pet…;
retrieving…a training data associated with the training of the pets based on the request, wherein the training data comprises one or more sessions for the user to learn the training of the pets with one or more pet behaviors;
generating…a first session data of a first session of the one or more sessions for the user to learn the training of the real pet with a first pet behavior of the one or more pet behaviors based on the request and the training data, wherein the first session data comprises a first virtual representation of at least one of a pet, at least one object, and an assistant, wherein the first session data further comprises at least one first action data associated with a first action and a first action instance of the first action of the first virtual representation;
transmitting,,, the first session data to the user …rendering the first virtual representation and the first action of the first virtual representation at the first action instance; and
receiving… at least one first user action data associated with a first user action and a first user action instance of the first user action of the user,
wherein the first user action at the first user action instance corresponds to the first action at the first action instance of the first virtual representation,
wherein … is further configured for rendering a first interaction between the user and the first virtual representation based on the at least one first user action data and the at least one first action data.”
Per claim 11:
“…retrieving a training data associated with the training of the pets based on a request, wherein the training data comprises one or more sessions for the user to learn the training of the pets with one or more pet behaviors;
…generating a first session data of a first session of the one or more sessions for the user to learn the training of the real pet with a first pet behavior of the one or more pet behaviors based on the request and the training data, wherein the first session data comprises a first virtual representation of at least one of a pet, at least one object, and an assistant, wherein the first session data further comprises at least one first action data associated with a first action and a first action instance of the first action of the first virtual representation; and
…receiving the request from a user to learn training a real pet…;
transmitting the first session data to the user device, …rendering the first virtual representation and the first action of the first virtual representation at the first action instance; and
receiving at least one first user action data associated with a first user action and a first user action instance of the first user action of the user…, wherein the first user action at the first user action instance corresponds to the first action at the first action instance of the first virtual representation, wherein… rendering a first interaction between the user and the first virtual representation based on the at least one first user action data and the at least one first action data.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a communication device,” “a user device,” “a storage device,” “a processing device,” and “an extended reality device,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “facilitating users to learn training pets,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a communication device,” “a user device,” “a storage device,” “a processing device,” and “an extended reality device,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a communication device,” “a user device,” “a storage device,” “a processing device,” and “an extended reality device,” as described in paras. [0050], [0064] and [0091] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0050] In general, the method disclosed herein may be performed by one or more computing devices. For example, in some embodiments, the method may be performed by a server computer in communication with one or more client devices over a communication network such as, for example, the Internet. In some other embodiments, the method may be performed by one or more of at least one server computer, at least one client device, at least one network device, at least one sensor, and at least one actuator. Examples of the one or more client devices and/or the server computer may include, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant, a portable electronic device, a wearable computer, a smart phone, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, a smart electrical appliance, a video game console, a rack server, a super-computer, a mainframe computer, mini-computer, micro-computer, a storage server, an application server (e.g. a mail server, a web server, a real-time communication server, an FTP server, a virtual server, a proxy server, a DNS server, etc.), a quantum computer, and so on. Further, one or more client devices and/or the server computer may be configured for executing a software application such as, for example, but not limited to, an operating system (e.g. Windows, Mac OS, Unix, Linux, Android, etc.) in order to provide a user interface (e.g. GUI, touch-screen based interface, voice based interface, gesture based interface, etc.) for use by the one or more users and/or a network interface for communicating with other devices over a communication network. Accordingly, the server computer may include a processing device configured for performing data processing tasks such as, for example, but not limited to, analyzing, identifying, determining, generating, transforming, calculating, computing, compressing, decompressing, encrypting, decrypting, scrambling, splitting, merging, interpolating, extrapolating, redacting, anonymizing, encoding and decoding. Further, the server computer may include a communication device configured for communicating with one or more external devices. The one or more external devices may include, for example, but are not limited to, a client device, a third party database, a public database, a private database, and so on. Further, the communication device may be configured for communicating with the one or more external devices over one or more communication channels. Further, the one or more communication channels may include a wireless communication channel and/or a wired communication channel. Accordingly, the communication device may be configured for performing one or more of transmitting and receiving of information in electronic form. Further, the server computer may include a storage device configured for performing data storage and/or data retrieval operations. In general, the storage device may be configured for providing reliable storage of digital information. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the storage device may be based on technologies such as but not limited to, data compression, data backup, data redundancy, deduplication, error correction, data finger-printing, role based access control, and so on.”
“[0064] Computing device 200 may have additional features or functionality. For example, computing device 200 may also include additional data storage devices (removable and/or non-removable) such as, for example, magnetic disks, optical disks, or tape. Such additional storage is illustrated in FIG. 2 by a removable storage 209 and a non-removable storage 210. Computer storage media may include volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. System memory 204, removable storage 209, and non-removable storage 210 are all computer storage media examples (i.e., memory storage.) Computer storage media may include, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, electrically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store information and which can be accessed by computing device 200. Any such computer storage media may be part of device 200.”
“[0091] Further, the communication device 1006 may be configured for transmitting the first session data to the user device 1102. Moreover, the user device 1102 includes an extended reality device 1104, as shown in FIG. 11. Further, the extended reality device 1104 may include a headset, a Head-mounted display (HMD) device, etc.”
As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a communication device,” “a user device,” “a storage device,” “a processing device,” and “an extended reality device,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional computer components. Therefore, these elements (i.e. “a communication device,” “a user device,” “a storage device,” “a processing device,” and “an extended reality device”) are regarded as ubiquitous computer elements that are part of commercially available products which do not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 11. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. Patent 6,944,421 to Axelrod. However, Axelrod does not explicitly teach “
“wherein the user device comprises an extended reality device, wherein the extended reality device is configured for rendering the first virtual representation and the first action of the first virtual representation at the first action instance; and
receiving, using the communication device, at least one first user action data associated with a first user action and a first user action instance of the first user action of the user from the user device,
wherein the first user action at the first user action instance corresponds to the first action at the first action instance of the first virtual representation,
wherein the extended reality device is further configured for rendering a first interaction between the user and the first virtual representation based on the at least one first user action data and the at least one first action data,” per claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 11. Therefore, claims 1-20 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715