DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 18 November 2025, claims 17-36 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 17, 29 and 36 recites a method comprising:
displaying, over a view of an environment including a plurality of audience members, one or more slides of a presentation;
while displaying the one or more slides of the presentation, obtaining data regarding the plurality of audience members; and
displaying, over a view of the environment, one or more virtual objects based on the data regarding the plurality of audience members.
The limitations of displaying slides, obtaining data, and displaying virtual objects based on the data, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “display” and “one or more processors”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “display” language, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually displaying the slides and virtual objects over a view of an environment including a plurality of audience members, for example using a pen and paper to illustrate an audience, slides, an virtual objects. Similarly, the limitation of “obtaining”, as drafted could be performed by a person merely observing an audience or taking data readings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a device with a processor and display to perform the claimed steps. The processor and display in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and display performing generic computer functions of obtaining and displaying information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor and display to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-28 and 30-35 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more. These claims only recite further abstract details of the data being received from the audience members using generic electronic devices, and abstract limitations of determining and displaying parameters such as engagement, understanding, etc., of the audience. These do not constitute additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 17-19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Advani et al. (US 2020/0021453 A1) in view of Frattasi et al. (WO 2021/040602 A1).
Regarding claims 17, 29 and 36, Advani discloses a method (claim 17) and corresponding device (claim 29) and non-transitory memory (claim 36) comprising:
at a device including a display, one or more processors, and non-transitory memory (presenter device 112 with media device 114 – see Fig. 1):
displaying, on the display in association with an environment including a plurality of audience members, one or more slides of a presentation (displaying dynamic slides which contain data relating to a plurality of audience members – see Par’s. 47-48, 61 – this display of slides that change based on audience data reads on the limitation of “in association with an environment including a plurality of audience members”);
while displaying the one or more slides of the presentation, obtaining data regarding the plurality of audience members (see Par’s. 42, 63); and
displaying, on the display in association with the environment, one or more virtual objects based on the data regarding the plurality of audience members (see Fig’s. 6, 14; Par’s. 75, 82 – virtual objects incorporated into dynamic slides based on the audience data, including for example audience feedback) (as per claims 17, 29 and 36).
Advani does not appear to explicitly disclose displaying the slides and virtual objects “over a view of” the environment including the plurality of audience members. However, Frattasi discloses a system for training a user to provide presentations (see abstract), that displays virtual audience members overlaid on a display of slides and virtual objects relating to the audience and presentation (see page 9, line 17 – page 10, line 6). It appears Frattasi only discloses the slides and virtual objects are displayed as a background relative to the audience, and not over a view of the audience, as claimed (i.e. the audience is in the foreground, not the background). However, such a modification of Frattasi to display the slides and objects over the audience would be obvious to try, because it would involve choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (in the background or the foreground), with a reasonable expectation of success in displaying the audience in the same space as the slides and virtual objects. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Advani by displaying the slides and virtual objects over a view of an environment including the plurality of audience members, as suggested by Frattasi, to obtain predictable results of providing feedback and helping train the user’s presenting and eye contact skills.
Regarding claims 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32, and 34, Advani further discloses
obtaining the data regarding the plurality of audience members includes receiving data from one or more electronic devices of the plurality of audience members (Par. 35) (as per claims 18 and 30),
the data from the one or more electronic devices is anonymized (data is based on statistics of entire audience, not individual members – see e.g. Par. 61) (as per claim 19),
the data from the one or more electronic devices includes text input by the plurality of audience members (comments or questions – see e.g. Par. 106) (as per claim 22),
displaying the one or more virtual objects includes displaying an indication of a level of engagement of the plurality of audience members (Par. 63) (as per claims 24 and 32),
displaying the one or more virtual objects includes displaying a feedback notification (Par. 82) (as per claim 26), and
displaying the one or more virtual objects includes displaying a virtual object in association with a particular audience member of the plurality of audience members (comment/question – Par. 80) (as per claims 27 and 34).
7. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Advani et al. (US 2020/0021453 A1) in view of Frattasi et al. (WO 2021/040602 A1), and further in view of Lagares-Greenblatt et al. (US 2021/0021898 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Advani and Frattasi does not appear to disclose the data from the one or more electronic devices is received in response to the plurality of audience members opting in to data sharing. However, Lagares discloses this feature of allowing audience members to opt-in to data tracking in a media content rating system (see Par’s. 31, 36-37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Advani and Frattasi by including this feature of Lagares. Such a modification would involve applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
8. Claims 21, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Advani et al. (US 2020/0021453 A1) in view of Frattasi et al. (WO 2021/040602 A1), and further in view of Kakaraparthy et al. (US 2020/0226941 A1).
Regarding claims 21, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33 and 35, the combination of Advani and Frattasi does not appear to disclose, but Kakaraparthy does discloses in a similar audience feedback system:
the data from the one or more electronic devices includes eye tracking data of the plurality of audience members (Par. 31) (as per claim 21), obtaining the data regarding the plurality of audience members includes capturing one or more images of the plurality of audience members (Par. 31) (as per claims 23 and 31), displaying the one or more virtual objects includes displaying an indication of a level of understanding of the plurality of audience members (Par. 50) (as per claims 25 and 33), and displaying the one or more virtual objects includes displaying a heat map in association with the one or more slides indicative of gaze information of the plurality of audience members (Par’s. 46-47) (as per claims 28 and 35). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Advani and Frattasi by incorporating these additional audience data capture and display features taught by Kakaraparthy, to obtain predictable results of providing additional types of feedback to the presenter.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 18 November 2025 with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the limitations of displaying slides and virtual objects over a view of an environment of a plurality of audience members cannot be practically performed in the human mind. This is not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection above, the claims recite the idea of displaying these items over a view of an environment of an audience, with the additional limitation of using a display and one or more processors to perform the idea. This idea could reasonably be performed for example by a person using a pen and paper to illustrate an audience with the slides and virtual objects over top.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 102 rejection of claims 17, 29 and 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Gupta et al. (US 2016/0049094 A1) discloses a public speaking trainer that displays virtual objects over a view of an audience (see Fig. 12d).
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715