DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 02 January 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s remarks but does not find them persuasive. “Applicant submits that even if claim 1 were directed to such a concept, the alleged abstract idea does not fall within any of the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Guidance (i.e. "Mathematical concepts," "Certain methods of organizing human activity," or "Mental Processes"). Therefore, for at least this reason, claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea, failing Prong One of the USPTO's required analysis.” Remarks at 14. Applicant’s argument is conclusory in nature and does not provide any meaningful rebuttal to Examiner’s analysis and conclusion. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant recites claim language from claim 1 and argues that “[b]y integrating these features to the environment of a computer-based virtual generation and display system, claim 1 integrates the features - and any associated abstract ideas - into a practical application (e.g. dynamically identifying, generating, placing, and modifying user interfaces), thereby rendering claim 1 subject matter eligible.” Remarks at 15. The practical application analysis focuses on the “additional elements” that exist outside of the abstract idea. These components, identified in the rejection below, are generic in nature and do not go beyond merely implementing the abstract idea. Mere integration into a computer-based environment is not sufficient to overcome this rejection. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “claim 1 explicitly reflects the recited improvement of integrating into the user's virtual environment via a rendering engine or overlay to dynamically identify, generate, render, place, and adjust virtual world advertisements. Furthermore, it does so in a way that is much more than simply placing a priming event or object to a user such that they will view an advertisement as alleged in the Office Action.” Remarks at 17. While the specification does indicate at [0009]-[0010] and [0030] that the present invention provides an improvement in the advertising arts, there is not support that this improvement is technological, nor that the problem is technological. This argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 recite a method which is considered a process. Claim 8-14 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 15-20 recite a product which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) The “identifying placement context for an identified advertisement in a predetermined area within the virtual environment to be displayed in a user interface of a client computer based on received advertisements, visual data from a user, identified contextual data, and/or one or more identified objects in the predetermined area, wherein identifying the placement context comprises analyzing a virtual visual display of the user interface” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claim 1 or the “program instructions to” language in claims 8 and 15, the claim encompasses a user manually utilizing known information to identify placement context. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) The “associating the identified advertisement and the placement context with a priming event or an object within the virtual environment based on the analysis of the virtual visual display of the user interface, wherein the object is virtual object within the virtual environment associated with the identified advertisement” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claim 1 or the “program instructions to” language in claims 8 and 15, the claim encompasses a user manually associating an advertisement and placement context with an event or object. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) The “selecting, for the user in the virtual environment, a timing and position of the priming event or the object in a presentation window within the virtual visual display of the user interface” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claim 1 or the “program instructions to” language in claims 8 and 15, the claim encompasses a user manually analyzing and selecting a timing and position of the event or object based on gathered information. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 1-20) These claims recite the concept of placing a priming event or object to a user such that they will view an advertisement (e.g., see “identifying placement context for an identified advertisement in a predetermined area within the virtual environment to be displayed in a user interface of a client computer based on received advertisements, visual data from a user, identified contextual data, and/or one or more identified objects in the predetermined area, wherein identifying the placement context comprises analyzing a virtual visual display of the user interface; associating the identified advertisement and the placement context with a priming event or an object within the virtual environment based on the analysis of the virtual visual display of the user interface, wherein the object is virtual object within the virtual environment associated with the identified advertisement; selecting, for the user in the virtual environment, a timing and position of the priming event or the object in a presentation window within the virtual visual display of the user interface; generating and rendering, by the client computer through the user interface, the priming event or the object within the virtual environment when the user is within the presentation window; modifying the virtual visual display within the user interface by dynamically adjusting the rendering of the object in the presentation window so that the rendered object fits within existing virtual objects within the virtual environment; and applying a blurring feature or reducing processing power to fully render video and audio associated with the object to present streams outside of a subset” in claim 1). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial interactions such as advertising activities. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 2, 9, and 16) The “selecting and outputting, through virtual environment software or hardware, product placement in a field of view of a user based on contexts and a correlating degree of focus on object data to provide multiple varying collections of data objects” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “through virtual environment software or hardware” language in claims 2, 9, and 16 or the “program instructions to” language in claims 9 and 16, the claim encompasses a user manually selecting and outputting product placement based on known information. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 3, 10, and 17) The “identifying the presentation window, wherein identifying the presentation window comprises: identifying, for the user, the timing and position of a priming event or object in the predetermined area based on a location and actions of the user” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claim 1 or the “program instructions to” language in claims 10 and 17, the claim encompasses a user manually identifying timing and position using known information. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 4, 11, and 18) The “receiving and generating the identified advertisement; and labeling the identified advertisement and the object associated with predetermined semantic context data for the identified advertisement and contextual data associated with the identified advertisement and product and service being advertised, wherein the object is objects in a virtual environment that fit within the predetermined semantic context data for the identified advertisement” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claim 1 or the “program instructions to” language in claims 11 and 18, the claim encompasses a user manually generating an advertisement and labeling data. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 5, 12, and 18) These claims further define the semantic context data is determined (e.g., “the predetermined semantic context data for the identified advertisement is based on real world physical dimensions”). These limitations do not take the claims out of the identified abstract idea groupings. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 6, 13, and 19) The “storing the identified advertisement and the predetermined semantic context labeling data in a relational table such that association can be resolved quickly using graph traversals; and enhancing the table with geospatial relational tables to search and enrich one or more contextual relationships that are derived” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claim 1 or the “program instructions to” language in claims 13 and 19, the claim encompasses a user manually storing and enhancing data in a table. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 7, 14, and 20) The “removing a presented priming object upon a transition of focus by the user to a generated advertisement; and limiting an amount of space and an amount of presented repetitions of the presented priming object based on predetermined paid revenue or predetermined value of the identified advertisement” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language in claim 1 or the “program instructions to” language in claims 14 and 20, the claim encompasses a user manually removing an object and limiting an amount of space and repetitions of an object. These claims fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea groupings. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of “a client computer through a user interface” (claim 1), “virtual environment software or hardware” (claim 2), a “computer system … comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage devices … a client computer through a user interface” (claim 8), “virtual environment software or hardware” (claim 9), a “computer program product … comprising: one or more computer readable storage devices … a client computer through a user interface” (claim 15), and “virtual software or hardware” (claim 16) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element 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 Step 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622