Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
The effective filing date of the present application is 03/07/2023.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 14, and 17 – 20, are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's remarks of 12/22/2025 have been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 – 5, 8 – 14, and 17 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims recite a system and a method. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims, as a whole, set forth a method for sharing customer records and data between a permitted user and a permitted third-party. The records and data are provided to a first display associated with the user and a second display associated with the third-party. Thus, the claims describe a user and a third-party both able to view the data and records and therefore, interacting within a business relation between the user and permitted third-party. This interaction is common when a social activity, such as a permitted user and a permitted third-party both reviewing collective customer records or internal data, is conducted. These two descriptions are considered to recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and are within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, the Examiner adds that the instant claims add steps to better define the relation between the user and a permitted third party, thus, enhancing a simple interaction into more of a business scenario (commercial interaction) of being provided with viewable customer record details and internal data associated with the user. Thus, describing a coordinated business relations. This concept is well regarded as a business relation because it aligns with examples within this category as defined within MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Particularly, the example of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations includes: processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A commercial interaction is also within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, and recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which is illustrative of claims 1 and 19, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A computer-implemented method for enabling data access in a virtual environment, the method comprising:
obtaining, from a data server: data associated with a plurality of customer records associated with a user;
internal data associated with the user;
a user permission associated with the user indicating that the user has permission to access the data associated with the plurality of customer records; and
a third-party permission associated with a third party indicating that the third-party has permission to access the data associated with the plurality of customer records and in the internal data associated with the user;
generating, by a processor by a processor: a first set of display components configured to display, in a three-dimensional virtual environment, customer record details associated with the plurality of customer records; and
a second set of display components configured to display, in the three-dimensional virtual environment, internal details associated with the internal data associated with the user;
providing, based on the user permission and the third-party permission, to a first display associated with the user associated with the customer record details and to a second display associated with the third party, the three-dimensional virtual environment including the plurality of first set of display components for display on the first display and on the second display such that the plurality of first set of display components is viewable in the three-dimensional virtual environment by the user associated with the customer record details via the first display and by the third party via the second display; and
provide, based on the user permission and the third-party permission, to the second display associated with the third party, the three-dimensional virtual environment including the second set of display components for display on the second display such that the second set of display components is viewable in the three-dimensional virtual environment by the third party via the second display and viewable not by the user associated with the customer record details via the first display.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of eligibility analysis. the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 10, and 19, recite the following additional elements:
an apparatus comprising: a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions embodied thereon;
computer-implemented;
one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions;
a data server;
a first set of plurality of display components configured to display, in a three-dimensional virtual environment;
a second set of display components configured to display, in the three-dimensional virtual environment;
a first display;
a second display.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0018, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0044, and 0075] and Figures 1 and 2, as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further to these additional elements are recitations of a plurality of display components configured to display, in a three-dimensional virtual environment. In this case, as recited, this environment is generated “by a processor”. This processor is generically defined at [0059]; thus, describing “apply” the abstract idea on a computer. The three-dimensional environment is merely being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, noting that the “…plurality of display components may be viewable in the three-dimensional environment 130 on a display device 140,…”. See Specification [0022 and 0024]. This definition provides nothing more than a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f). The devices are configured to act in their ordinary capacity to render a display and no specific device is required. Accordingly, the three-dimensional virtual environment is itself equivalent to display certain customer record details (data) on a common device; which is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (an apparatus comprising: a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions embodied thereon; computer-implemented; one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions; a data server; a first set of plurality of display components configured to display, in a three-dimensional virtual environment; a second set of display components configured to display, in the three-dimensional virtual environment; a first display; a second display), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer – “computer-implemented”. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 – 5, 8 – 9, 11 – 14, 17 – 18, and 20, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1, 10, and 19. Recitations to displaying customer records to the customer and the third-party (advisor), or not displaying certain records (data); and a forecast, are all core facets of the business relation of the user and the third-party (advisor) – the entities who are permitted to view the records and internal data. Thus, they are directed to the abstract idea. These claims further recite to computer implementation. This amounts to no more than simply instructing one to practice an abstract idea by using generically recited devices (computer-implemented and the metaverse) to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 5, 8 – 14, and 17 – 20, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has not amended the claims and argues that the claims as presented do not recite a judicial exceptions and the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application. See page 8. Applicant adds the Office Action analysis is replete with errors. See page 9. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action Improperly Construes the Claims
Applicant argues that at Step 2A, Prong One analysis, the previous conclusion that the claims recite an abstract idea is incorrect. Applicant argues that the previous Office Action “…makes repeated assertions that the claims recite interactions between a user and a third party.” See page 9. This argument is not persuasive. First, the previous Office Action concluded that the claims “set forth a method for sharing customer records and data between a permitted user and a permitted third-party.” Thus, the claims described a user and a third-party both able to view the data and records and therefore, interacting within a business relation between the user and permitted third-party. The Examiner remarked this exemplified a common interaction, such as a banking transaction, where a user (customer) and an authorized third-party (bank representative) may seek to review common customer data. Next, the Examiner suggested that the claims added steps that better defined a relation between the user and the third-party; i.e., when reciting the data is customer records and the user must have permission to view the records, and the internal data is only viewable by the third-party who also must have permission to view. This is fittingly descriptive of a highly confidential sharing of important data between the two parties. The Examiner noted that this seemed akin to an example given at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), and noted within Applicant’s remarks; that is, the example of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations includes: processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). This seems analogous to the instant claims of processing (obtaining and providing) information (customer records and internal data ) through a clearing-house (data server), where the business relation is the relationship between a party (user) submitted a credit application (is the originator of customer records) and funding sources (third-party). After reviewing the claims, the Examiner concluded and now maintains, that the claims describe a business relation, which is a commercial interaction, which is identified as a certain method of organizing human activity, and an abstract idea.
The Examiner adds that the review of the claims is reasonable in view of Applicant’s disclosure. Reasonableness is measured by the words of the claims themselves, the Specification, and the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. To this end, the Examiner maintains that the claims set forth a method for sharing customer records and data between a permitted user and a permitted third-party, and are reasonable when analyzed at Step 2A, Prong One.
The Office Action analysis does not follow the guidance and examples in MPEP in improperly characterizing the claims as reciting certain methods of organizing human activity
Applicant argues that the Office Action has rendered conclusions which are inconsistent with the guidance and examples set forth in MPEP on subject matter eligibility. See page 12. The Examiner finds this argument not persuasive. Throughout prosecution, all instant claims have been analyzed as indicated within the MPEP. As detailed in the previous Office Action as well as repeated herein, the claims have been concluded to fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter, when analyzed at Step One. At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims, as a whole, set forth a method for sharing customer records and data between a permitted user and a permitted third-party. Therefore, the claims describe a commercial interaction (in the form of a business relation), and describe an abstract idea.
Applicant points to several examples within the MPEP that may exemplify a commercial interaction. See page 13. Applicant remarks that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) “…generally relates to contracts and agreements.” Page 13. This argument is not correct and not persuasive. The Examiner views this section of the MPEP to explicitly call out Commercial or Legal Interactions. It is the final example contained within this section, and remarked upon and included within Applicant’s comments, (see page 14), that was deemed to describe a similar business relation that involved data processing and sharing (submitted) between a user and a third-party. The Examiner noted previously and within this Office Action, that the instant claims are similar to the example where a commercial or legal interaction is business relations includes: processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s conclusion that the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. See page 15. Applicant adds the following remarks.
Updated Guidance for Step 2A – Prong Two
Applicant next point to Desjardins as showing support for guidance that might lead to the conclusion that the “…subject matter of claim 1 provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field…” See page 16. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant.
Analysis here evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). The instant amended claim recites the additional elements identified earlier; an apparatus comprising: a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions embodied thereon; computer-implemented; one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions; a data server; a first set of plurality of display components configured to display, in a three-dimensional virtual environment; a second set of display components configured to display, in the three-dimensional virtual environment; a first display; a second display.
These elements are broadly defined at Specification [0018, 0019, 0021, 0022, 0044, and 0075] and Figures 1 and 2. Therefore, the Examiner maintains these elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further to the additional elements of a plurality of display components configured to display, in a three-dimensional virtual environment; in the instant claims, as recited, this environment is generated “by a processor”. This processor is generically defined at [0059]; thus, describing “apply” the abstract idea on a computer. The three-dimensional environment is merely being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, noting that the “…plurality of display components may be viewable in the three-dimensional environment 130 on a display device 140,…”. See Specification [0022 and 0024]. This definition provides nothing more than a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f). The devices are configured to act in their ordinary capacity to render a display and no specific device is required. Accordingly, the three-dimensional virtual environment is itself equivalent to display certain customer record details (data) on a common device; which is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further remarks that the instant claims conclude with recitations for providing record details to a first display and a second display, to be viewable (or not) by certain parties. This is descriptive of a static display of data (records) and requires no further steps. Thus, they recite use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. The claims also require only general-purpose computer components (first display, second display), to perform an abstract idea. Further, the display is merely viewable; it does not require further action nor provide for any improvement in, on, or relating to, the display. A typical and common use of display technology to provide data that might be viewed, does not impart any improvement to the use of that technology.
In Desjardins, the claims reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity. No such elements are present within the instant claims. As just discussed, the instant claims describe a static display of data and result in the completion of no further steps, that would reflect improvement to technology. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629