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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 5, 2026 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 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 9-10 recite a method (process) system, Claims 11-16 and 18 recite a system (machine), and Claims 19-20 recite one or more non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture) and therefore fall into a statutory category. The examiner is interpreting the system and computer readable medium perform the steps of the method for examination purposes.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 the claims recite concepts covering a manner for managing assets associated with a user, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts covered under the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 1) A [computer-implemented] method for interacting with estate information in a collaborative an extended reality (XR) environment, the [computer-implemented] method comprising:
(Claim 11) [A system, for interacting with estate information in a collaborative an extended reality (XR) environment comprising: a communication interface; and one or more processors configured to:]
(Claim 19) [A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for interacting with estate information in a collaborative extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to:]
[obtaining XR preferences for a first person, including a first XR preference indicating willingness to hold virtual meetings and a second XR preference indicating a preferred manner of conducting virtual meetings;]
[based on the first XR preference, sending, using one or more processors and to a computing device of the first person, a link for a virtual meeting with a second person in an XR environment;]
[initiating, using the one or more processors and when the link is activated, the virtual meeting with the second person in the collaborative XR environment, wherein initiating the virtual meeting includes generating the collaborative XR environment in accordance with at least the second XR preferences;]
[providing, in the collaborative XR environment using a first XR device associated with the first person and a second XR device associated with the second person, one or more user interfaces];
receiving, from the first person and the second person [via the one or more user interfaces in the collaborative XR environment], asset data, [wherein at least the first person interacts with the one or more user interfaces using virtual gestures to select user interface elements to enter portions of the asset data];
generating, [using one or more processors], estate data for the person that includes the asset data; and presenting, [in the collaborative XR environment using the first XR device and the second XR device], one or more visual depictions of the estate data such that the first person and the second person can at least one of view, modify, or approve the estate data.
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
Here the claims recite concepts performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts reciting a manner of managing assets associated with a user. (See paragraphs 28-31)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, it falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
Computer-implemented. (See paragraph 109)
A system. (See paragraph 131)
A communication interface. (See paragraph 133)
One or more processors. (See paragraph 132)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. (See paragraph 109)
Instructions. (See paragraph 109)
A first/second XR device (See paragraphs 33 and 39)
A collaborative XR environment. (See paragraph 32)
One or more user interfaces (See paragraphs 70 and 83)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Regarding, “obtaining XR preferences for a first person, including a first XR preference indicating willingness to hold virtual meetings and a second XR preference indicating a preferred manner of conducting virtual meetings; based on the first XR preference, sending, using one or more processors and to a computing device of the first person, a link for a virtual meeting with a second person in an XR environment; initiating, using the one or more processors and when the link is activated, the virtual meeting with the second person in the collaborative XR environment, wherein initiating the virtual meeting includes generating the collaborative XR environment in accordance with at least the second XR preferences; providing, in the collaborative XR environment using a first XR device associated with the first person and a second XR device associated with the second person, one or more user interfaces; wherein at least the first person interacts with the one or more user interfaces using virtual gestures to select user interface elements to enter portions of the asset data” the examiner views these additional elements merely indicating the particular technological environment or field of use in which to apply the abstract idea, in this instance extended reality. See MPEP 2106.05 (h)
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) Accordingly, even in combination 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Regarding the limitations of “obtaining XR preferences for a first person, including a first XR preference indicating willingness to hold virtual meetings and a second XR preference indicating a preferred manner of conducting virtual meetings; based on the first XR preference, sending, using one or more processors and to a computing device of the first person, a link for a virtual meeting with a second person in an XR environment; initiating, using the one or more processors and when the link is activated, the virtual meeting with the second person in the collaborative XR environment, wherein initiating the virtual meeting includes generating the collaborative XR environment in accordance with at least the second XR preferences; providing, in the collaborative XR environment using a first XR device associated with the first person and a second XR device associated with the second person, one or more user interfaces; wherein at least the first person interacts with the one or more user interfaces using virtual gestures to select user interface elements to enter portions of the asset data” is generally well understood, routine and conventional information as taught by the Specification. See paragraphs 21, 34, 43, 58-59, 61, 70, and 130 of the Specification. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 12 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic one or more user interfaces (See paragraphs 70 and 83), a first input element (See paragraph 49), computer-implemented (See paragraph 109) and one or more processors (See paragraph 132) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 2 and 12 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the results-oriented solution steps of “wherein processing the document includes processing, ((Claim 1) using one or more processors), the document with one or more of optical character recognition, text recognition, or natural language processing.” (See paragraph 50) and is viewed as equivalent to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 3 and 13 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 14 further define the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 4-5 and 14 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic distributed ledger (See paragraph 62) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 further define the field of use in which to the apply the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (h). The limitations are generally well understood routine conventional activity as taught by the Specification that does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. (See paragraphs 83-84). Therefore claims 7 and 16 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 recite “wherein the virtual meeting includes a virtual meeting of avatars of the first person and the second person” the examiner views as further defining the field of which to the apply the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (h). The limitations are generally well understood routine conventional activity as taught by the Specification that does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. (See paragraphs 83-84). Therefore claims 9 and 18 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 further defines field of use in which to the apply the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. the identified abstract idea is applied to the abstract idea as identified. See MPEP 2106.05 (h). The limitations are generally well understood routine conventional activity as taught by the Specification that does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. (See paragraph 32). Therefore claim 10 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic one or more processors (See paragraph 132) and distributed ledger (See paragraph 62) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 15 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 20 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic one or more user interfaces (See paragraphs 70 and 83), a first input element (See paragraph 49, and system (See paragraph 131) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 20 is considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 8-11 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim recites elements including:
1) A multi-person, collaborative XR environment in which one or more user interfaces are provided using (i.e., shared among) the XR devices of the collaborators ("sending, ... to a computing device of the first person, a link for a virtual meeting with a second person in the collaborative XR environment", "initiating, ...when the link is activated, the virtual meeting with the second person in the collaborative XR environment", and "providing, in the collaborative XR environment using a first XR device associated with the first person and a second XR device associated with the second person, one or more user interfaces");
2) virtual gesture selection (by at least one of the people in the virtual meeting) of user interface elements within the collaborative XR environment to enter portions of asset data, e.g., such that one person may lead or facilitate asset data entry actions in the virtual meeting while the other person observes, guides, directs, etc. ("receiving, from the first person and the second person via the one or more user interfaces in the collaborative XR environment, asset data, wherein at least the first person interacts with the one or more user interfaces using virtual gestures to select user interface elements to enter portions of the asset data"); and
3) joint presentation in the collaborative XR environment of estate data that includes the entered asset data, e.g., such that both people in the virtual meeting can modify or approve the estate data, etc. ("presenting, in the collaborative XR environment using the first XR device and the second XR device, one or more visual depictions of the estate data such that the first person and the second person can at least one of view, modify, or approve the estate data").
According to Applicant these elements beyond merely linking the abstract idea to extended reality but rather establish a specific process for collaboratively entering and interacting with estate information in a virtual meeting environment and provide a technological solution to the technological problem of inefficient or ineffective collection of asset data. (See paragraph 3). Therefore, the claims provide an improvement to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding aspect 1) the Examiner views this is generally linking the identified abstract idea to the field of use of extended reality in particular these steps relate to the coordination of a virtual meeting in extended reality for subsequently managing the estate assets. Regarding aspect 2) the Examiner views the receiving asset data as part of the recited abstract idea, in addition, the defining of the interaction technique the Examiner views as generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of extended reality in particular this step relates to selecting elements in extended reality for performing part of the abstract idea (i.e. receiving asset data). Regarding aspect 3) the Examiner views this is generally linking the recited abstract idea i.e. how the estate information is presented to the user via the field of use of extended reality.
The Examiner generally views the claims are directed to managing assets of a user (i.e. managing their estate and associated information) and that this abstract idea is generally linked to the field of use of extended reality that does not integrate the abstract idea. The Examiner views the purported improvement of improving data collection is an improvement to the abstract idea of managing estate data and does not constitute a technical improvement to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lynch et al. (US 20220189075)- directed to AR display of commercial and residential feature an in-person showing.
Lete et al. (US 20170140484) -directed to allowing a user to customize the look of a location or a property based upon user input using VR or AR.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629