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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on July 17, 2026, and August 19, 2026. The Applicants’ Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 21-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended. Claims 3-4 have been canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 17, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue at page 9 of Applicants’ Reply dated July 17, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicants’ Reply”) that the claims are directed to "a computer implemented technical architecture for automatically reconciling disputes arising from virtual world transactions. The specification describes the technical problem. For example, [0013] describes that conventional online dispute resolution mechanisms are ineffective in virtual world environments because virtual world platform providers generally do not act as trusted intermediaries for transactions involving physical objects represented in a virtual environment. Consequently, there exists no computer-based mechanism for validating whether a delivered physical object corresponds to its virtual world rendering and for automatically reconciling disputes based on such validation." Applicants further argue at page 10 of Applicants’ Reply that "the method requires providing an agreed list of attributes prior to completion of the transaction, receiving payment and causing the payment to be held by a third-party mediator, validating information received from both users, automatically reconciling the dispute based on the comparison, and automatically causing release or return of the held payment according to the reconciliation determination. These steps of claimed features cannot be performed mentally." The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Thus, merely reciting the use of a computer is not sufficient to recite a technological improvement. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) further indicates “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
With this in mind, the Examiner first notes that, as previously discussed in the Office Action dated August 4, 2026, validating information and reconciling a dispute and then causing a third party to release/return a payment may be (and has been) performed mentally, as this is how an escrow service works and has worked before the advent of the internet. The claims merely recite this mental process as being performed by a computer. There are no specific steps/rules recited as being part of the automatic dispute resolution. In contrast, for example, in McRO, it was determined that "the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated." No such rules or processes are recited here.
The Examiner further notes that, both at least in the previous office action and below, the Examiner has identified the computer readable storage media and the processor as being recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claimed invention is a concept performed in the human mind and applicants are merely claiming that concept performed on a generic computer.
Applicants further argue at page 11 of Applicants’ Reply that amended claim 1 “recites how the payment is received, held, and then released upon automatic reconciliation. The claimed features use the computer-generated determination to automatically control operation of the transaction itself by directing disposition of payment associated with the virtual world transaction.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “information from each of the first user and the second user for use in reconciliation of the dispute” and “validating, by the processor set, the information received from each of the first user and the second user for use in reconciliation of the dispute.” However, the Examiner also notes that there is no indication of how the information received from the first and second user is “validated,” i.e., what processes or steps are encompassed by this validation?
Further, even though it is recited that this information is “for use in reconciliation of the dispute,” the information is never recited as being used in the dispute resolution process. Is this information used along with determining whether there is a match between the virtual world object and the physical object as part of the dispute resolution process? Or is the information received from the first and second user the information that is used to determine the match? How does the validation play a role in the dispute resolution process? Applicants are invited to further elaborate on the dispute resolution process and how the information received from the first and second user is involved.
Thus, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicants’ remaining arguments have been fully considered but they have either been addressed above or they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite a method, a computer program product, and a system for determining if a virtual world rendering of an object matches a physical object. With respect to claim 1, claim elements providing the list of attributes to a second user, defining at least one alternative value for at least one of the list of attributes, validating the information, determining values of attributes of the digital rendering, comparing the determined values of attributes to respective values in the list of attributes, determining whether at least one of the corresponding respective values is sufficiently similar, making a determination that the physical object matches or does not match the virtual world rendering of the object, automatically reconciling the dispute involving the transaction, causing the payment to be provided to the first or second user, and notifying the first and second user of the determination, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, other than reciting (in claims 1 and 15) that a processor performs the method, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Claims 9 and 15 recite similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 9, and 15 recite receiving/retrieving data. Further, claim 15 recites adding data. These limitations are considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 15 recites one or more computer readable storage media and claims 1 and 15 recite a processor. These elements are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claims 1, 9, and 15 recite receiving/retrieving data and claim 15 recites adding data. Per MPEP 2106.05(q)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, inc. v. SAP Am, inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1368, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2075) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1360, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2074) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Further, as discussed above, claim 15 recites one or more computer readable storage media and claims 1 and 15 recite a processor. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 21-24 depend from claims 1, 9, and 15. Claims 5, 11, and 17 are directed to the virtual world rendering being viewable in the virtual world and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 14 are directed to storing and retrieving data which, as discussed above, are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 12 is directed to the type of algorithm used in conjunction with the computer vision and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 21 is directed to the block of the blockchain and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 22 is directed to displaying the list of attributes which, as discussed above, is a function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 23 is directed to the second user providing input and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 24 is directed to the first user providing a certification regarding the list of attributes and is further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 21-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious, a method comprising: receiving, by a processor set, and as part of a transaction in a virtual world, a list of attributes of a virtual world rendering of an object for sale by a first user, the list of attributes having been created by the first user; providing, by the processor set, the list of attributes to a second user prior to completion of the transaction in the virtual world; defining, by the processor set, at least one sufficiently similar alternative value for at least one of the list of attributes; receiving, by the processor set, an indication that the second user accepts the list of attributes and completes the transaction in the virtual world; receiving, by the processor set, a payment associated with the transaction from the second user in the virtual world and causing the payment to be held by a third-party mediator; in response to the second user initiating a dispute involving the transaction in the virtual world, receiving, by the processor set, a digital rendering of a physical object provided to the second user as a result of the transaction in the virtual world, and information from each of the first user and the second user for use in reconciliation of the dispute; validating, by the processor set, the information received from each of the first user and the second user for use in reconciliation of the dispute; determining, by the processor set, using one or more computer vision techniques, values of attributes of the digital rendering for respective attribute types included in the list of attributes; comparing, by the processor set. the determined values of attributes of the respective attribute types to corresponding respective values in the list of attributes, including determining whether at least one of the corresponding respective values is sufficiently similar based on the at least one sufficiently similar alternative value; making, by the processor set, a determination that the physical object matches or does not match the virtual world rendering of the object based on whether values of compared attributes are sufficiently similar; automatically reconciling, by the processor set, the dispute involving the transaction in the virtual world using the determination, including: causing the payment held by the third-party mediator to be provided to the first user when the physical object matches the virtual world rendering of the object; and causing the payment held by the third-party mediator to be returned to the second user when the physical object does not match the virtual world rendering of the object; and notifying, by the processor set, the first user and the second user of the determination that the physical object matches or does not match the virtual world rendering of the object.
With respect to claims 9 and 15, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious, a computer program product and a system reciting similar features.
In the event the claims are amended, they will be subject to further examination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
