DETAILED ACTION
This action is filed in response to the amendments filed on 2/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the method as recited in independent claims 1, 18, and 20 constitute an improvement and therefore the 35 USC 101 rejections should be withdrawn.
Examiner notes the broad language recited in claims 1, 18, and 20 fails to tie the method to a particular environment or technology and therefore there is no improvement. The independent claims teach scanning with a sensor, identifying points on a first and second plane, and optimizing the identified points. Based solely on the language utilized in claims 1, 18, and 20 is method can be generally applied to a multitude of technological environments and is not tied to a particular machine, and therefore cannot constitute an improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “to show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.”
However, examiner notes, Claims 2 and 19 do tie the method to a particular technological environment and particular machine in teaching that the sensor is a LIDAR sensor. Therefore the 101 Rejections of Claims 2 and 19 are withdrawn.
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, 3-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract -concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. Claim 1, and similarly Claims 18 and 20 recite the following abstract concepts in BOLD of:
A method for operating a display system comprising a display, the method comprising: scanning an environment, wherein said scanning comprises detecting, with the sensor, a plurality of points of the environment;
identifying a first plane of the environment, wherein the first plane comprises at least a threshold number of points of the plurality of detected points;
obtaining a plurality of observations associated with the environment, the plurality of observations comprising a first subset of observations and a second subset of observations;
determining whether the first plane is coplanar with a second plane of the environment;
in accordance with a determination that the first plane is coplanar with the second plane, performing a planar bundle adjustment based on the first subset of observations and based further on the second subset of observations;
in accordance with a determination that the first plane is not coplanar with the second plane, performing planar bundle adjustment based on the first subset of observations and not based on the second subset of observations;
generating a representation of the environment based on the planar bundle adjustment; and displaying a virtual object with the display wherein a displayed location of the virtual object is set based on the representation of the environment.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category as Claim 1 teaches a method, Claim 18 teaches a system, and Claim 20 teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps. The steps of identifying a first plane of an environment and obtaining a plurality of observations associated with the environment can be interpreted as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. The step of determining where the first plane is coplanar with a second plane could either be considered as performing mathematics or a mental process depending on one's interpretation of the limitation. Finally, the last two limitations teaching performing a planar bundle adjustment can be interpreted as performing mathematics based on the description of planar bundle adjustments as given in the specification.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, and they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Examiner notes the broad language recited in claims 1, 18, and 20 fails to tie the method to a particular environment or technology and therefore there is no improvement. The independent claims teach scanning with a sensor, identifying points on a first and second plane, and optimizing the identified points. Based solely on the language utilized in claims 1, 18, and 20 is method can be generally applied to a multitude of technological environments and is not tied to a particular machine, and therefore cannot constitute an improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “to show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.”
Under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processors, sensor, and memory taught in the independent claims are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Furthermore, the limitation teaching scanning an environment recites necessary data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Lastly the final two limitations teaching generating a representation of the environment and displaying a virtual object recite displaying data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”, see also MPEP 2106.05(h), As a whole the claim itself is analogous to the Electric Power Group decision in which it was determined that “ Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Claims 3-9 and 11-17 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea:
Claims 3 and 11-12, recite data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Claims 4, 7-9, 13, 15 further limit the mathematics performed without significantly more.
Claims 5-6 further disclose an additional abstract idea without integrating the abstract ideas of Claim 1 into a practical application. The claims teach determining a distance which can be interpreted as either a mental process or performing mathematics depending on one's interpretation of the limitation. The claims subsequently teaches selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated which is insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) “information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Claim 14 further discloses an additional abstract idea without integrating the abstract ideas of Claim 1 into a practical application. Claim 14 teaches comparing two thresholds which can be interpreted as either a mental process or performing mathematics depending on one's interpretation of the limitation.
Claim 16 recites storing data which is well- understood, routine, and conventional activity which is considered insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv.) “Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.”
Claim 17 teaches data outputting which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”, see also MPEP 2106.05(h), As a whole the claim itself is analogous to the Electric Power Group decision in which it was determined that “ Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Examiner notes that claims 2 and 19 recite limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2 and 19 do tie the method to a particular technological environment and particular machine in teaching that the sensor is a LIDAR sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes the closest prior art to be Harrises (US20170206691A1), Wang, Jun et al.: (June 18, 2017). "High Quality 3D Reconstruction of Indoor Environments using RGB-D Sensors", 2017, 12th IEEE Conference on industrial electronics and Applications (ICIEA), IEEE, pages 1739-1744 (hereinafter “Wang”), and Wolberg (US20080310757A1).
Harrises teaches a method comprising: scanning an environment, wherein said scanning comprises detecting, with a sensor, a plurality of points of the environment (e.g. see [0588] “some embodiments, the wearable system is capable of measuring depth. The depth may be measured using optical techniques (e.g., stereoscopic imaging using an outward-facing imaging system) or using active electromagnetic or acoustic signals (such as using a lidar system or an acoustic depth sensor). The wearable system may identify a boundary of an object that may be a mirror”);
identifying a first plane of the environment, wherein the first plane comprises at least a threshold number of points of the plurality of detected points (e.g. see [0016] “the method of embodiment 1, wherein the display area is configured to output light to form a plurality of images set on a plurality of depth planes, wherein one or more of the images comprise the augmented reality content”);
obtaining a plurality of observations associated with the environment, the plurality of observations comprising a first subset of observations and a second subset of observations (e.g. see [0072] “The system of embodiment 59, wherein the stored image information comprises unique, optically observable features of the wearable display device”);
determining whether the first plane is coplanar with a second plane of the environment (e.g. see [0612] “The wearable system may identify the structural component as a wall (e.g., a vertical planar structure) if, for example, there is a large enough number of coplanar features”).
Examiner notes none of the prior art teaches or renders obvious the method as claimed comprising, “in accordance with a determination that the first plane is coplanar with the second plane, performing a planar bundle adjustment based on the first subset of observations and based further on the second subset of observations; and
in accordance with a determination that the first plane is not coplanar with the second plane, performing planar bundle adjustment based on the first subset of observations and not based on the second subset of observations.”
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 would be allowable based on their dependence on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Harrises teaches the same limitations from Claim 1 and further teaches one or more processors (e.g. see [0007] “The display device also comprises one or more hardware processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer-executable instructions. The instructions, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations.”
Similar to Claim 1, Examiner notes none of the prior art teaches or renders obvious the method as claimed comprising, “in accordance with a determination that the first plane is coplanar with the second plane, performing a planar bundle adjustment based on the first subset of observations and based further on the second subset of observations; and
in accordance with a determination that the first plane is not coplanar with the second plane, performing planar bundle adjustment based on the first subset of observations and not based on the second subset of observations.”
Claim 19 would be allowable based on its dependence on Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, Harrises teaches the same limitations from Claim 1 and further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with one or more processors and memory, cause the device to perform a method (e.g. see [0007] “The display device also comprises one or more hardware processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer-executable instructions. The instructions, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations.”
Similar to Claim 1, Examiner notes none of the prior art teaches or renders obvious the method as claimed comprising, “in accordance with a determination that the first plane is coplanar with the second plane, performing a planar bundle adjustment based on the first subset of observations and based further on the second subset of observations; and
in accordance with a determination that the first plane is not coplanar with the second plane, performing planar bundle adjustment based on the first subset of observations and not based on the second subset of observations.”
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 NYLA GAVIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1592. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/NYLA GAVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857