DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 18/124,434 (03/21/23) filed on 02/19/26.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
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
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
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 NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 20 is/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.
Re Claims 1 - 15:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e., method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves receiving a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items, and determining a type of item in the one or more virtual items; in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items; receiving the information associated with the one or more virtual items; determining an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information; and sending an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (insurance of one or more virtual items); commercial or legal interactions (insurance of one or more virtual items); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, determining, querying, sending).
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “by one or more processors”) does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items, and determining a type of item in the one or more virtual items; in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items; receiving the information associated with the one or more virtual items; determining an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information; and sending an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Although the claim refers to “by one or more processors”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items, and determining a type of item in the one or more virtual items; in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items; receiving the information associated with the one or more virtual items; determining an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information; and sending an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of “an insurance server comprising one or more processors”. (b) Although a “virtual environment server” is also referenced in the claim, the claim is not from the perspective of the “virtual environment server” and the “virtual environment server” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “virtual environment server” merely interacts with the “insurance server comprising one or more processors” from whose perspective the invention is claimed. (c) Although a “customer computing device” is also referenced in the claim, the claim is not from the perspective of the “customer computing device” and the “customer computing device” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “customer computing device” merely interacts with the “insurance server comprising one or more processors” from whose perspective the invention is claimed.
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “by one or more processors”) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “an insurance server comprising one or more processors in communication with a virtual environment server and a customer computing device” and each of the positively recited steps or acts being performed “by the one or more processors” performing the positively recites steps or acts. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “sending”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “querying”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering insurance data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 03/21/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least Fig. 1, para. [0038]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Luciani, US Pub. No. 2014/0100890; Mehta, US Pat. No. 8,888,598; MA Intl. Pub. No. KR 20110117837; Van Luchene, US Pub. No. 2007/0117615; Nussbaum, US Pub. No. 2021/0027545; Dawson, US Pub. No. 2010/0169125; and Sanchez, US Pat. No. 11,969,653, operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “sending”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “querying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Luciani, abstract, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0010] [0011] [0012] [0015]. Mehta, abstract, col. 1, lines 38 - 46; col. 2, lines 38 - 48; col. 5, line 29+ - col. 16, line 14. Ma, abstract, pgs. 2 - 4. Van Luchene, [0017] [0025] [0026] [0028] - [0041] [0043]. Nussbaum, [0028]. Dawson, [0027]. Sanchez, col. 19, lines 19 - 56. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “sending”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “querying”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent computer system claim 10 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “one or more processors”) described in independent computer system claim 10, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (computer system) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11 - 15 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Re Claims 16 - 20:
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 16, is/are directed to a machine (i.e., computer device).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves receiving a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items, and determining a type of item in the one or more virtual items; in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for being specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items, and the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items; receiving the information associated with the one or more virtual items; determining an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information; and sending an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (insurance of one or more virtual items); commercial or legal interactions (insurance of one or more virtual items); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receive, determine, query, send).
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “one or more memories”) does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items, and determining a type of item in the one or more virtual items; in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for being specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items, and the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items; receiving the information associated with the one or more virtual items; determining an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information; and sending an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Although the claim refers to “one or more processors” and “one or more memories”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items, and determining a type of item in the one or more virtual items; in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for being specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items, and the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items; receiving the information associated with the one or more virtual items; determining an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information; and sending an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of “a computer device” comprising “one or more processors” and “one or more memories”. (b) Although a “virtual environment server” is also referenced in the claim, the claim is not from the perspective of the “virtual environment server” and the “virtual environment server” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “virtual environment server” merely interacts with the “computer device” from whose perspective the invention is claimed. (c) Although a “customer computing device” is also referenced in the claim, the claim is not from the perspective of the “customer computing device” and the “customer computing device” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “customer computing device” merely interacts with the “computer device” from whose perspective the invention is claimed.
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “one or more processors” and “one or more memories”) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “a computer device” comprising “one or more processors” and “one or more memories”; and “in communication with a virtual environment server and a customer computing device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of each of the positively recited steps or acts being performed by “the one or more processors”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “send”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “query”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering insurance data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 03/21/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least Fig. 1, para. [0038]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Luciani, US Pub. No. 2014/0100890; Mehta, US Pat. No. 8,888,598; MA Intl. Pub. No. KR 20110117837; Van Luchene, US Pub. No. 2007/0117615; Nussbaum, US Pub. No. 2021/0027545; Dawson, US Pub. No. 2010/0169125; and Sanchez, US Pat. No. 11,969,653, operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “send”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “query”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Luciani, abstract, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0010] [0011] [0012] [0015]. Mehta, abstract, col. 1, lines 38 - 46; col. 2, lines 38 - 48; col. 5, line 29+ - col. 16, line 14. Ma, abstract, pgs. 2 - 4. Van Luchene, [0017] [0025] [0026] [0028] - [0041] [0043]. Nussbaum, [0028]. Dawson, [0027]. Sanchez, col. 19, lines 19 - 56. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receive”, “send”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determine”, “query”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 17 - 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 3, 5, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani, US Pub. No. 2014/0100890 in view of Mehta, US Pat. No. 8,888,598.
Re Claims 1 and 10: Luciani discloses a computer-implemented method/ computer system for querying for and processing information associated with one or more virtual items in a virtual environment, the computer-implemented method/ computer system including an insurance server comprising one or more processors in communication with a virtual environment server and a customer computing device, the computer-implemented method/ computer system comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors and from the customer computing device, a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items (Luciani, abstract, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0010] [0011]);
receiving, by the one or more processors, from the virtual environment server, the information associated with the one or more virtual items (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0011]);
determining, by the one or more processors, an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information (Luciani, Fig. 2, [0011]); and
sending, by the one or more processors, an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium to the customer computing device (Luciani, Fig. 2, [0011]).
Luciani fails to explicitly disclose:
determining, by the one or more processors, a type of item in the one or more virtual items;
in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items;
Mehta discloses:
determining, by the one or more processors, a type of item in the one or more virtual items (Mehta, abstract, col. 1, lines 38 - 46; col. 2, lines 38 - 48; col. 5, line 29+ - col. 16, line 14);
in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items (Mehta, abstract, col. 1, lines 38 - 46; col. 2, lines 38 - 48; col. 5, line 29+ - col. 16, line 14);
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Luciani is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of providing insurance for one or more virtual items. In this case, Mehta is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of querying information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani by adopting the teachings of Mehta to provide determining, by the one or more processors, a type of item in the one or more virtual items; and in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items.
One would have been motivated to improve record keeping and the accuracy of valuations.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
One would have been motivated to improve record keeping and the accuracy of valuations.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claims 3 and 13: Luciani in view of Mehta discloses the claimed invention supra and Luciani further discloses wherein the one or more virtual items include a virtual: character, house, or vehicle (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0011], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Claim 5: Luciani in view of Mehta discloses the claimed invention supra and Luciani further discloses:
receiving, by the one or more processors, updated information associated with the one or more virtual items (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0011]); and
sending, by the one or more processors, based upon the updated information, an offer to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items to the customer computing device (Luciani, Fig. 2, [0011]).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani in view of Mehta as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ma, KR 20110117837.
Re Claim 2: Luciani in view of Mehta discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real- world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items.
Ma discloses:
the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real- world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items (Ma, abstract, pgs. 2 - 4, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, interpreted akin to “wherein” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention. See also, MPEP §211.05 nonfunctional descriptive material.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ma is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta by adopting the teachings of Ma to provide the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real- world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items.
One would have been motivated to provide more robust, and relevant data.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 12: Luciani in view of Mehta discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose the information associated with the one or more virtual items including four or more of:(i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items.
Ma discloses:
the information associated with the one or more virtual items including four or more of:(i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items (Ma, abstract, pgs. 2 - 4, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, interpreted akin to “wherein” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention. See also, MPEP §211.05 nonfunctional descriptive material.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Ma is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta by adopting the teachings of Ma to provide the information associated with the one or more virtual items including four or more of:(i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items.
One would have been motivated to provide more robust, and relevant data.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani in view of Mehta as applied to claims 1, 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Van Luchene, US Pub. No. 2007/0117615.
Re Claims 4 and 14: Luciani in view of Mehta discloses the claimed invention supra and Luciani further discloses wherein: the one or more virtual items include a character (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0011] See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
Luciani fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein: the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes an experience level of the character.
Van Luchene discloses:
wherein: the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes an experience level of the character (Van Luchene, [0017] [0025] [0026] [0028] - [0041] [0043], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Van Luchene is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta by adopting the teachings of Van Luchene to provide wherein: the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes an experience level of the character.
One would have been motivated to provide more robust, and relevant data.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani in view of Mehta as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Nussbaum, US Pub. No. 2021/0027545.
Re Claim 6: Luciani in view of Mehta discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the customer computing device comprises a virtual reality (VR) headset.
Nussbaum discloses:
wherein the customer computing device comprises a virtual reality (VR) headset (Nussbaum, [0028], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Nussbaum is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta by adopting the teachings of Nussbaum to provide wherein the customer computing device comprises a virtual reality (VR) headset.
One would have been motivated to provide more effective and realistic visuals.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 11: Luciani in view of Mehta discloses the claimed invention supra and Luciani further discloses wherein the system further comprises the customer computing device (Luciani, abstract, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0010] [0011], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.),
Luciani fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the customer computing device comprises a virtual reality (VR) headset.
Nussbaum discloses:
wherein the customer computing device comprises a virtual reality (VR) headset (Nussbaum, [0028], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Nussbaum is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta by adopting the teachings of Nussbaum to provide wherein the customer computing device comprises a virtual reality (VR) headset.
One would have been motivated to provide more effective and realistic visuals.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani in view of Mehta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dawson, US Pub. No. 2010/0169125.
Re Claim 7: Luciani discloses the claimed invention supra and further discloses wherein: the customer computing device comprises a vender server (Luciani, [0012] [0015], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
Luciani fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein: the one or more virtual items are included in an inventory of items offered by the vender server.
Dawson discloses:
wherein: the one or more virtual items are included in an inventory of items offered by the vender server (Dawson, [0027], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Dawson is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta by adopting the teachings of Dawson to provide wherein: the one or more virtual items are included in an inventory of items offered by the vender server.
One would have been motivated to provide more robust, and relevant data.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani in view of Mehta as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Sanchez, US Pat. No. 11,969,653.
Re Claims 8 and 15: Luciani in view of Mehta discloses the claimed invention supra and Luciani further discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, historical information of historical virtual items including historical insurance premiums (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0011]);
Luciani fails to explicitly disclose:
routing, by the one or more processors, the received information associated with the one or more virtual items to a machine learning algorithm that (i) is trained using the historical information of the historical virtual items, and (ii) outputs data upon which the insurance premium determination is based.
Sanchez discloses:
routing, by the one or more processors, the received information associated with the one or more virtual items to a machine learning algorithm that (i) is trained using the historical information of the historical virtual items, and (ii) outputs data upon which the insurance premium determination is based (Sanchez, col. 19, lines 19 - 56).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sanchez is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of employing machine learning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta by adopting the teachings of Sanchez to provide routing, by the one or more processors, the received information associated with the one or more virtual items to a machine learning algorithm that (i) is trained using the historical information of the historical virtual items, and (ii) outputs data upon which the insurance premium determination is based.
One would have been motivated to improve the speed and relevance of recommendations.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani in view of Mehta and Sanchez as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Van Luchene, US Pub. No. 2007/0117615.
Re Claim 9: Luciani in view of Mehta and Sanchez discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the historical information includes: (i) a prevalence of the historical virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the historical virtual items that the historical virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the historical virtual items, (iv) an availability of the historical virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding historical virtual items corresponding to the virtual items, (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the historical virtual items, (vii) an experience level of the historical virtual items, (viii) a capability level of the historical virtual items, (ix) historical insurance premiums of the historical virtual items, and/or (x) costs of the historical virtual items at times of losses.
Van Luchene discloses:
wherein the historical information includes: (i) a prevalence of the historical virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the historical virtual items that the historical virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the historical virtual items, (iv) an availability of the historical virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding historical virtual items corresponding to the virtual items, (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the historical virtual items, (vii) an experience level of the historical virtual items, (viii) a capability level of the historical virtual items, (ix) historical insurance premiums of the historical virtual items, and/or (x) costs of the historical virtual items at times of losses (Van Luchene, [0017] [0025] [0026] [0028] - [0041] [0043], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Van Luchene is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of historical information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta and Sanchez by adopting the teachings of Van Luchene to provide wherein the historical information includes: (i) a prevalence of the historical virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the historical virtual items that the historical virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the historical virtual items, (iv) an availability of the historical virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding historical virtual items corresponding to the virtual items, (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the historical virtual items, (vii) an experience level of the historical virtual items, (viii) a capability level of the historical virtual items, (ix) historical insurance premiums of the historical virtual items, and/or (x) costs of the historical virtual items at times of losses.
One would have been motivated to provide more robust, and relevant data.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani, US Pub. No. 2014/0100890 in view of Mehta, US Pat. No. 8,888,598 and Ma, KR 20110117837.
Re Claim 16: Luciani discloses a computer device configured to query for and process information associated with one or more virtual items in a virtual environment, the computer device comprising:
one or more processors in communication with a virtual environment server and a customer computing device (Luciani, [0012] [0013]0014] [0015] [0016]); and
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors (Luciani, [0012] [0013]0014] [0015] [0016]);
the one or more memories including computer-executable instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Luciani, [0012] [0013]0014] [0015] [0016]):
receive, from the customer computing device, a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items (Luciani, abstract, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0010] [0011]);
receive from the virtual environment server, the information associated with the one or more virtual items (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0011]);
determine an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information (Luciani, Fig. 2, [0011]); and
send an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium to the customer computing device (Luciani, Fig. 2, [0011]).
Luciani fails to explicitly disclose:
determine a type of item in the one or more virtual items;
in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, query, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for being specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items, and the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items;
Mehta discloses:
determine a type of item in the one or more virtual items (Mehta, abstract, col. 1, lines 38 - 46; col. 2, lines 38 - 48; col. 5, line 29+ - col. 16, line 14);
in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, query, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for being specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items (Mehta, abstract, col. 1, lines 38 - 46; col. 2, lines 38 - 48; col. 5, line 29+ - col. 16, line 14),
Ma discloses:
the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items (Ma, abstract, pgs. 2 - 4, See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, interpreted akin to “wherein” clause that is not further limiting of the claimed invention. See also, MPEP §211.05 nonfunctional descriptive material);
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Luciani is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of providing insurance for one or more virtual items. In this case, Mehta is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of querying information associated with one or more virtual items. In this case, Ma is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani by adopting the teachings of Mehta and Ma to provide determine a type of item in the one or more virtual items;
in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, query, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for being specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items, and the information associated with the one or more virtual items including two or more of: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, and/or (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items;
One would have been motivated to improve record keeping and the accuracy of valuations. One would have been motivated to provide more robust, and relevant data.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 18: Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma discloses the claimed invention supra and wherein the one or more virtual items include a virtual: character, house, or vehicle (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0011], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Van Luchene, US Pub. No. 2007/0117615.
Re Claim 17: Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, (vii) an experience level of the one or more virtual items, and/or (viii) a capability level of the one or more virtual items.
Van Luchene discloses:
wherein the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, (vii) an experience level of the one or more virtual items, and/or (viii) a capability level of the one or more virtual items (Van Luchene, [0017] [0025] [0026] [0028] - [0041] [0043], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Van Luchene is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma by adopting the teachings of Van Luchene to provide wherein the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes: (i) a prevalence of the one or more virtual items in the virtual environment, (ii) an initial cost of the one or more virtual items that the one or more virtual items were initially purchased for, (iii) updates and/or modifications to the one or more virtual items, (iv) an availability of the one or more virtual items, (v) a cost of a corresponding one or more virtual items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, (vi) a cost of one or more real-world items corresponding to the one or more virtual items, (vii) an experience level of the one or more virtual items, and/or (viii) a capability level of the one or more virtual items.
One would have been motivated to provide more robust, and relevant data.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claim 19: Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma discloses the claimed invention supra and Luciani further discloses wherein: the one or more virtual items include a character (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0011] See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.);
Luciani fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein: the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes an experience level of the character.
Van Luchene discloses:
wherein: the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes an experience level of the character (Van Luchene, [0017] [0025] [0026] [0028] - [0041] [0043], See also, MPEP §2103 I. C. and §2111.04, “wherein” clause interpreted as not further limiting of the claimed invention.).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Van Luchene is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma by adopting the teachings of Van Luchene to provide wherein: the information associated with the one or more virtual items includes an experience level of the character.
One would have been motivated to provide more robust, and relevant data.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sanchez, US Pat. No. 11,969,653.
Re Claim 20: Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma discloses the claimed invention supra and Luciani further discloses wherein the one or more memories including computer-executable instructions stored therein that, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine the insurance premium by:
receiving historical information of historical virtual items including historical insurance premiums (Luciani, Figs. 1 and 2; [0009] [0011]);
Luciani fails to explicitly disclose:
routing the received information associated with the one or more virtual items to a machine learning algorithm that (i) is trained using the historical information of the historical virtual items, and (ii) outputs data upon which the insurance premium determination is based.
Sanchez discloses:
routing the received information associated with the one or more virtual items to a machine learning algorithm that (i) is trained using the historical information of the historical virtual items, and (ii) outputs data upon which the insurance premium determination is based (Sanchez, col. 19, lines 19 - 56).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sanchez is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of employing machine learning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Luciani in view of Mehta and Ma by adopting the teachings of Sanchez to provide routing, by the one or more processors, the received information associated with the one or more virtual items to a machine learning algorithm that (i) is trained using the historical information of the historical virtual items, and (ii) outputs data upon which the insurance premium determination is based.
One would have been motivated to improve the speed and relevance of recommendations.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it (a) provides a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g., “….. directed to a specific technical solution for efficiently querying and processing information in a distributed computing environment involving an insurance server, a virtual environment server, and a customer computing device.” See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 02/19/26.; “….. specifically addresses the technical problem of efficiently managing data transmission and processing across multiple computing devices in a distributed system.” See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 02/19/26.); and (b) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., “These improvements collectively enable faster premium calculations and more efficient utilization of system resources across the distributed computing environment.” See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 02/19/26.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention (a) provides a technical solution to a technical problem; and (b) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
Insurance (e.g., insurance of one or more virtual items) is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. Similarly, the idea of providing a narrow search or query is not technical in nature. Regardless of whether it is called a narrow search or some other term like drilldown, limited, focused etc. is used, these types of searches or queries can be done by a human operator/ have human-based alternative (e.g., conducting research). What applicant is really arguing (e.g., increased speed, decreased resources, decreased bandwidth, decreased processing demand) is the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, the role of the device (e.g., “insurance server”/ “computer system comprising an insurance server”/ “computer device”) is limited to necessary data gathering and outputting (e.g., “receiving, by the one or more processors and from the customer computing device, a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items …..”; “receiving, by the one or more processors, from the virtual environment server, the information associated with the one or more virtual items”; and “sending, by the one or more processors, an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium to the customer computing device”.). For example, the device (e.g., “insurance server”/ “computer system comprising an insurance server”/ “computer device”) is merely selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (e.g., “in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items;”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “receiving, by the one or more processors and from the customer computing device, a request to purchase insurance for the one or more virtual items …..”; “receiving, by the one or more processors, from the virtual environment server, the information associated with the one or more virtual items”; and “sending, by the one or more processors, an insurance quote including the determined insurance premium to the customer computing device”.); analyzing it (e.g., “determining, by the one or more processors, a type of item in the one or more virtual items; in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items;”; and “determining, by the one or more processors, an insurance premium for the one or more virtual items based upon the received information”;); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
Prior Art
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to explicitly disclose, “in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items;”
Luciani discloses a similar invention where a user via their client computer may seek to select and purchase insurance or other risk management products for their virtual assets (akin to “receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items” as claimed). Although Luciani fails to explicitly disclose “querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items”. Mehta discloses the known technique of responsive to a query, searching a searchable database storing virtual items and their properties and attributes. Mehta further discloses the use of indexes and tags associated with attributes and properties of the virtual items to aide in searchability (akin to “querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items” as claimed). The limitation “in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items;” would have been obvious in light of these teachings. See citations supra.
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Luciani is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of providing insurance for one or more virtual items. In this case, Mehta is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to virtual environments, and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of querying information associated with one or more virtual items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Luciani by adopting the teachings of Mehta to provide in response to receiving the request to purchase the insurance for the one or more virtual items, querying, by the one or more processors, the virtual environment server for a subset of the information associated with the one or more virtual items, wherein a scope of the information associated with the one or more virtual items queried for is specific to the type of item in the one or more virtual items.
One would have been motivated to improve record keeping and the accuracy of valuations.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to insurance of one or more virtual items.
Lowry, Sharon K. "Property Rights in Virtual Reality: All's Fair in Life and Warcraft." Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 15 (2008): 109.
Passman, Michael H. "Transactions of virtual items in virtual worlds." Alb. LJ Sci. & Tech. 18 (2008): 259.
Norman, Robert Paul. "Virtual Insurance Risks." Brief 31 (2001): 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights