DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Action in response to the Amendment filed 06/22/2026.
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
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on page 8 of the remarks that the claims are directed to at least one statutory category of subject matter and that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers observations or evaluations then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submits on page 9 of the remarks that even assuming arguendo, the claim were construed as reciting an abstract idea, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on page 11 of the remarks that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection has been presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19 the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 15) are directed, in part, to a system, a method and a computer-readable medium for presenting recommendations in a virtual reality environment. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-3, 6 are directed to a system, which falls under the statutory category of a machine, claims 8-10, 13 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claims 15-17, 19 are directed to a computer readable storage medium, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to receiving… a request to generate a personalized plan related to a future of the user; in response to receiving the request, obtaining… user data associated with the user from a set of data sources; generating… using at least one machine learning model based on the user data, the personalized plan and an extended reality (XR) representation of the personalized plan, wherein the XR representation of the personalized plan corresponds to a virtual world visualizing the future of the user as predicted in accordance with the personalized plan, and wherein generating the XR representation comprises generating a data model personalized for the user based at least in part on an analysis of a behavior of the user within the virtual environment, creating a persona for the user using a psychographic segmentation model, and creating a virtual avatar for the user within the virtual environment by mapping a set of attributes representing a set of visual features of the user to a digital representation of the user; and causing the XR representation of the personalized plan to be made accessible to the user via an XR system for viewing, wherein the user data comprises at least one of: XR data obtained from at least one XR data source comprising the XR system, the XR data comprising data derived from one or more interactions by the user within the virtual environment; or non-XR data obtained from at least one non-XR data source, wherein the non-XR data comprises at least one of: data obtained from a social media channel, data obtained from a financial website, data obtained from an electronic mail account, data obtained from an online survey, or health and wellness data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite additional elements: system, memory, processing device, user device, data sources, machine learning model, extended reality, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, XR data source. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1A and 1B and related text and [0016-0018] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “The processing device 702 may be provided by one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, central processing unit, or the like. In an illustrative example, the processing device 702 may comprise a complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessor, reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessor, very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessor, or a processor implementing other instruction sets or processors implementing a combination of instruction sets. The processing device 702 may also comprise one or more special-purpose processing devices such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), a network processor, or the like. The processing device 702 may be configured to execute methods of managing computing systems, in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure. The computer system 700 may further include a network interface device 708, which may communicate with a network 720. The computer system 700 also may include a video display unit 710 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)), an alphanumeric input device 712 (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device 714 (e.g., a mouse) and/or an acoustic signal generation device 715 (e.g., a speaker). In some embodiments, video display unit 710, alphanumeric input device 712, and cursor control device 714 may be combined into a single component or device (e.g., an LCD touch screen). The data storage device 718 may include a computer-readable storage medium 728 on which may be stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., instructions of the methods of automated review of communications, in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure) implementing any one or more of the methods or functions described herein. The instructions may also reside, completely or at least partially, within main memory 704 and/or within processing device 702 during execution thereof by computer system 700, main memory 704 and processing device 702 also constituting computer-readable media. The instructions may further be transmitted or received over a network 720 via network interface device 708. While computer-readable storage medium 728 is shown in an illustrative example to be a single medium, the term "computer-readable storage medium" shall be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database and/or associated caches and servers) that store one or more sets of instructions.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. Next, when the “machine learning” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See, e.g., Balsiger et al., US 2012/0054642, noting in paragraph [0077] that “Machine learning is well known to those skilled in the art.” See also, Djordjevic et al. US 2013/0018651, noting in paragraph [0019] that “As known in the art, a generative model can be used in machine learning to model observed data directly.” See also, Bauer et al., US 2017/0147941, noting at paragraph [0002] that “Problems of understanding the behavior or decisions made by machine learning models have been recognized in the conventional art and various techniques have been developed to provide solutions.” Accordingly, the use of machine learning to generate a learning model does not add significantly more to the claims.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2022/0374855 (hereinafter; Balaoro) in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0005548 (hereinafter; Peppel).
Regarding claims 1/8/15, Balaoro discloses:
A system; A method; A non-transitory computer-readable storage-medium comprising: a memory; and at least one processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a user device associated with a user, a request to generate a personalized plan related to a future of the user; (Balaoro [0121] discloses In some examples, if the customer experience customization engine 164 identifies future plans of a customer; [0188] discloses customers can schedule future services.)
in response to receiving the request, obtaining user data associated with the user from a set of data sources; (Balaoro [0043] discloses The interface layer 120 can generate and/or provide one or more interfaces that can interact with devices, such as customer devices 104, merchant devices 108, and/or BAM store area devices 110. The interface layer 120 can receive data from the devices, transmit data to the devices, identify positions of the devices, identify properties of the devices, or combinations thereof.)
generating, using at least one machine learning model based on the user data, the personalized plan and an extended reality (XR) representation of the personalized plan, wherein the XR representation of the personalized plan corresponds to a virtual world visualizing the future of the user as predicted in accordance with the personalized plan; (Balaoro Fig. 6 discloses a machine learning engine, See also [0038]; [0043] discloses Customer devices 104 can include devices associated with customers 102, such as cellular phones, smartphones, mobile handsets, tablet devices, laptops, wearable devices, earpieces, mobile devices, portable devices, head-mounted display (HMD) devices, augmented reality (AR) devices, virtual reality (VR) devices, mixed reality (MR) devices, extended reality (XR) devices, portable media devices, portable gaming consoles, any type of devices discussed with respect to the computing system 1500, or a combination thereof.)
and causing the XR representation of the personalized plan to be made accessible to the user via an XR system for viewing, wherein the user data comprises at least one of: XR data obtained from at least one XR data source comprising the XR system, the XT data comprising data derived from one or more interactions by the user within the virtual environment; (Balaoro discloses interactions with the system in at least [0098].) or non-XR data obtained from at least one non-XR data source, wherein the non-XR data comprises at least one of: data obtained from a social media channel, data obtained from a financial website, data obtained from an electronic mail account, data obtained from an online survey, or health and wellness data. (Balaoro [0088] discloses The present disclosure contemplates that in some instances, gathered data may include personal information data that uniquely identifies or can be used to contact or locate a specific person. Such personal information data can include demographic data, location-based data, telephone numbers, email addresses, social media ID's, home addresses, data or records relating to a user's health or level of fitness (e.g., vital signs measurements, medication information, exercise information), date of birth, payment account data, payment instrument data, or any other identifying or personal information.)
Although Balaoro discloses generating a plan for a user based on a virtual reality environment, Balaoro does not specifically disclose a psychographic model for mapping features. However, Peppel discloses the following limitations:
and wherein generating the XR representation comprises generating a data model personalized for the user based at least in part on an analysis of a behavior of the user within the virtual environment, creating a persona for the user using a psychographic segmentation model, and creating a virtual avatar for the user within the virtual environment by mapping a set of attributes representing a set of visual features of the user to a digital representation of the user; (Peppel [0062] discloses a psychographic modeling module that can be configured to map/correlate psychographic attributes. See also [0078]; [0087].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the virtual environment of Balaoro with the optimization of communication media of Peppel in order to increase appeal to a target audience (Peppel abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 2/9/16, Balaoro discloses:
The system of claim 1; The method of claim 8; The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the request is received via a digital assistant. (Balaoro discloses a virtual assistant in at least [0031]; [0182]; [0343].)
Regarding claims 3/10/17, Balaoro discloses:
The system of claim 1; The method of claim 8; The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise converting the XR representation into a non-XR representation accessible to the user via a non-XR system, and wherein the non-XR representation is one of: an audio representation, a visual representation, an audiovisual representation, or a textual representation.
Regarding claims 6/13/19, Balaoro discloses:
The system of claim 1; The method of claim 8; The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving feedback data corresponding to the user; and updating, based on the feedback data, the at least one machine learning model. (Balaoro [0243] discloses FIG. 6 is a flow diagram illustrating operations 600 for training a machine learning system based on feedback. The operations 600 can refer to a system and/or process for learning for object detection in a BAM store based on sensor data and feedback.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
