DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to amendments filed February 10th, 2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 02/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-26 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning with “Part 1: Legal Analysis and Why the Amended Claims Are Allowable Under 35 U.S.C. 101” page 11 of the provided remarks argues “B. The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea Under Step 2A, Prong One”. Continuing onto page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “The Claims Do Not Recite a “Mental Process”. Citing MPEP 2104.06(a)(2)(III)(A), Applicant argues that various limitations of the independent claims are not mental for at least four interlocking, claim grounded reasons. The first, Applicant argues, “the claims recite population-level monitoring and thresholded pattern detection that presuppose system-scale data logging and aggregation across many users, which is not practicable for a human mind.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that while Applicant cites various portions of the Specification to argue, “cross-user comparison with counters and thresholds necessarily relies on event records and automated tallies, not human observation across concurrent sessions”, Examiner asserts that the human mind is capable of comparing sets of steps performed by each user and determining whether a distributed numerical indicator exceeds a threshold. Citing the 2019 PEG, “By way of example, examiners may review the specification to determine if the underlying 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, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.” Examiner asserts that the argued “server” and claimed “processor” are being used as a tool to perform the concept. Therefore, the following functions are practicable for the human mind. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The second argument by Applicant is “the claims tie the detection result to selective memory access keyed to the detected path”. Citing Specification support, Applicant argues “Humans do not perform memory-addressed partial retrievals and conditional network transmissions that deterministically govern device rendering.” Examiner asserts that the above argument is partially moot as the following argued “transmit … only the first portion of metadata”; and “render[s] … only the particular set of steps” were not included as reciting the abstract idea of mental process. Regarding the argued ability of humans to perform “memory addressed partial retrievals”, while Applicant cites the server’s ability to access metadata related to the steps, Examiner asserts as stated above that the “server” is being used as a tool to perform the concept. Accessing data based on determined relation to a set of steps when claimed as a high-level is a determination and judgment of the human mind. Therefore, the following functions are practicable for the human mind. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The third argument by Applicant states, “the claims recite device-directed rendering behavior as an immediate consequence of the selective transmission.” As stated above, Examiner asserts that the above argument is moot as the following argued “transmit … only the first portion of metadata”; and “render[s] … only the particular set of steps” were not included as reciting the abstract idea of mental process. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The fourth argument by Applicant states, “the magnitude and timing constraints are impossible to perform by a human, even with the aid of pen and paper.” Applicant continues on to argue “Executing these optimizations in real time across "a plurality of users" and immediately conditioning device behavior on the specific subset of assets transmitted is beyond what an unaided human can do, even theoretically, because it involves concurrent data collection, indexed retrieval, and protocol-level transmission and rendering control tied to the detected sequence.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the present claims do not recite the argued timing constraints. For example, the claimed “transmit … only the first portion of metadata” fails to recite the specific “protocol-level transmission and rendering control tied to the detected sequence” as argued by Applicant. However, this argument by Applicant, as stated above is partially moot as the concurrent data collection, protocol-level transmission and rendering control tied to the detected sequence argued were not included in the identified mental process abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As stated above, Examiner asserts that the above argument is moot as the following argued “transmit … only the first portion of metadata”; and “render[s] … only the particular set of steps” were not included as reciting the abstract idea of mental process. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On pages 13-14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues citing MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) that the claimed limitations are “categorically incompatible with human cognition”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and reasserts above arguments regarding the argued limitations. Specifically, the argued “population-level logging of user paths ("monitor a set of steps performed by each of a plurality of users to complete a first task in a virtual environment")”; the argued “threshold-based detection of a qualifying sequence ("determine that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded a threshold")”; and “indexed retrieval of only a subset of metadata ("access from the memory a first portion of metadata relating to a plurality of steps that can be performed to complete the first task”)” are mental observations, judgments, and evaluations of the human mind that utilize the claimed processor as a tool to perform the concept.
Beginning on page 14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “2. The Claims Do Not Recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. As an overarching argument, Applicant states “The claims are not directed to "organizing human activity" under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) because they operate within the computing stack and do not prescribe roles, conduct, or behavioral rules for people.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims do not solely operate within the computing stack as argued but directly monitor the activity of users as seen within the claimed “monitor a set of steps performed by each of a plurality of users to complete a first task”. This directly prescribes to conduct and behaviors of users which recites the managing of personal behavior. While Applicant argues “the independent claims recite technical operations performed by identified components (processor, memory, user device, and network interface)” Examiner asserts, as stated above, that these generic computing components are merely being used as a tool to perform the management of personal behavior in the form of monitoring user steps. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant, regarding the certain methods of organizing human activity argument, first states, “claim 1 is framed in system/technology terms and recites server-device operations, not human behavioral rules”. Citing the use of “memory” and “a processor communicatively coupled to the first user device” to perform the claim steps, Applicant argues “These are machine-executed data operations tied to specific components ("processor," "memory," "user device"), not prescriptions for how people should organize activities.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and states that the claimed result of the monitoring of steps utilized by the user is the claimed, “process the particular set of steps in the particular sequence” which is directly analogous to the prescription of how a person should perform the steps, i.e., organize human activity. Additionally, as stated above, the argued generic computing components are merely being used as a tool to perform the management of personal behavior in the form of monitoring user steps. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Second, Applicant argues, “the claim's improvement is realized inside the computing stack by changing data retrieval and rendering behavior, not by reorganizing human interactions. Examiner asserts that this argument by Applicant is moot as the argued limitations were not identified as reciting Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues, “the problem being solved is technical, and the benefit accrues to the computer system irrespective of any change in user conduct.” Applicant continues on to argue “The claim here reconfigures how and when the system retrieves and renders assets so the device "render[s] ... only the particular set of steps" caused by "transmitting only the first portion of the metadata," a computer performance optimization.” Examiner asserts that this argument by Applicant is moot as the argued limitations were not identified as reciting Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Fourth, Applicant argues, “the claim's user-facing elements confirm the focus remains on system operation rather than human organization.” Citing the “user credential” and “authoriz[ing] … a first avatar” limitations, Applicant argues “These are authentication, authorization, and presentation controls of computer security and UI pipelines, and are implemented using identified components (processor 152, memory 156, network interface 154) rather than by dictating human relationships or business rules.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, the claimed result of the monitoring of steps utilized by the user is the claimed, “process the particular set of steps in the particular sequence” which is directly analogous to the prescription of how a person should perform the steps, i.e., organize human activity. Additionally, as stated above, the argued generic computing components are merely being used as a tool to perform the management of personal behavior in the form of monitoring user steps. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Finally, the causal chain recited in the claim is technological from end to end: detection of a sequence across "a plurality of users" -> selective memory access ("a first portion of metadata") -> selective transmission ("only the first portion") -> deterministic device behavior ("causes the first user device to render ... only the particular set of steps").” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, the argued “detection of a sequence across "a plurality of users" -> selective memory access ("a first portion of metadata")” are not solely technological as argued as these functions recite both organizing human activity managing personal behavior as well as mental process. Examiner asserts that the argument regarding “selective transmission ("only the first portion") -> deterministic device behavior ("causes the first user device to render ... only the particular set of steps")” is moot as the argued limitations were not identified as reciting Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, Applicant argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Beginning on page 16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “1. The Specification Describes a Technical Problem and Technical Solution”. Applicant continues on pages 16-17 of the provided remarks to cite various portions of the Specification to support the argument. Examiner states, citing MPEP 2106.05(a) “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.” Therefore, it is not solely that the Specification recites the improvement to determine whether or not the claimed invention improves technology. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 17-18 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “2. The Claims Reflect the Technical Improvement Described in the Specification”. Citing various claim limitations, Applicant argues “it is a specific technical implementation that improves the functioning of both the server and the user device by reducing the computational burden of accessing, transmitting, and rendering metadata.” Examiner begins by asserting that the claims to do not recite the functioning of the server, as the claims presently recite “a processor communicatively coupled to a used device”. As further cited in MPEP 2106.05(a) “The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” Examiner asserts that the argued claim limitations reduction in metadata is nothing more than an incidental, natural, and inevitable result of reducing the volume of data to be processed, which does not amount to a technological improvement. Additionally, while Applicant argues the “improved speed and efficiency” of the server and subsequent user device, Examiner asserts that this is not a technical improvement to the functioning of the device but an incidental benefit from selectively accessing and transmitting only the necessary data. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 18 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “3. The Claims Are Analogous to Patent-Eligible Improvements in Federal Circuit Precent”. Citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is analogous. Beginning with Enfish, Applicant argues “the present invention improves the way the computer stores, retrieves, and uses data-here, by requiring the system to access and transmit "only the first portion of metadata" tied to a server-determined step sequence, which in turn causes the device to render "only the particular set of steps." This selectivity is not an aspirational result but a structural constraint on how memory access and network transmission occur.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that argued Enfish recited the specific storing and retrieving of data within a self-referential database, which is a specific data structure, that demonstrated eligibility. The claimed “memory” is not analogous to the argued data structure utilized within Enfish and is therefore not comparable eligibility analysis. Applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the argued, BASCOM, Applicant states “the inventive concept resides in the non-conventional arrangement of known components: the server performs population-level monitoring, thresholded sequence detection, and then selective retrieval/transmission that dictates downstream rendering.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts the argued BASCOM disclosed a customized filtering method applied at a remote server. The argued “population-level monitoring, thresholded sequence detection”, as argued above, are merely claimed as being performed by “a processor” and is therefore not analogous to the argued remote server application of BASCOM. Additionally, the argued “selective retrieval/transmission that dictates downstream rendering” is not analogous to the argued “user customized filtering mechanism” found within BASCOM, and is therefore not comparable eligibility analysis. Applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 18 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “Claim 1 similarly recites a concrete mechanism that changes how the system handles data at a low level, what is stored, what is retrieved, what is transmitted, and what is rendered-based on a server-determined step sequence.” Citing the previously argued claim limitations, Applicant argues, “This is a precise, structural constraint on data operations-"only the first portion of the metadata" for rendering "only the particular set of steps"-not a result-oriented aspiration. The selectivity is baked into the memory access and transmission semantics the server must implement.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that these limitations are not a “precise, structural constraint” or “baked into” a structural component as argued as the claim limitations are merely performed by “a processor communicatively coupled to a first user device associated with the first user and the memory”. This high-level association of the processor to the user device and memory would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 19 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the claims recite a specific reconfiguration of data handling that reduces memory fetches, network traffic, and device-side rendering work, which mirrors Enfish's recognition that an improved way of storing/retrieving data is a computer-function improvement in its own right.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, that the claims do not recite “a specific reconfiguration of data handling” as the claimed “in response to receiving the request, access from memory” and “transmit … only the first portion of the metadata” provide no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, Applicant argues “the “improvement” is not an incidental effect of doing “less”. It is achieved by a particular, claim-recited pipeline.” Examiner asserts, as stated in Applicant’s arguments on page 17 of the provided remarks, that the technical solution is the following claim limitations, "access from the memory a first portion of metadata relating to a plurality of steps that can be performed to complete the first task, wherein the first portion relates only to the particular set of steps of the plurality of steps" and "transmit, to the first user device, only the first portion of the metadata that relates to the particular set of steps for rendering the particular set of steps on the first user device, wherein transmitting only the first portion of the metadata causes the first user device to render in the virtual environment only the particular set of steps from the plurality of steps". Therefore, the argued “claim-recited pipeline” including the determination of a threshold number of users is not persuasive as (1) this determination was acknowledged above as reciting the abstract idea and is not an additional element (2) not part of the argued identified technical improvement. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On pages 19-20 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to BASCOM. Specifically, on page 19 of the provided remarks, Applicant begins by stating “Claim 1 pins the claimed selectivity to a specific location in the network architecture-the virtual-world server coupled via a network interface to user devices-rather than leaving implementation to a generic "do it on a computer."” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, that while Applicant cites various Specification elements of the system, claim 1 does not include the argued configuration of the system. Claim 1 merely recites, “A system comprising: a memory; a processor communicatively coupled to a first user device associated with the first user and the memory; virtual environment” which would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 20 of the provided remarks to argue, “the overall arrangement is non-conventional as an ordered combination, even if individual components (processor, memory, network) are generic.” Citing the sequence of claim steps, Applicant argues, “That is exactly the BASCOM-type insight: eligibility stems from where and how the functionality is implemented in the network and the non-generic way the pieces are arranged to solve the prior technical problem.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued BASCOM, per MPEP 2106.05(f) “the court determined that the claimed combination of limitations did not simply recite an instruction to apply the abstract idea of filtering content on the Internet. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, the claim recited a "technology based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcome the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243.” Therefore, BASCOM presented a “technology based solution of filtering content which the identified “individual components (processor, memory, network)” of the present invention could not produce. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on to argue, “Claim 1 solves a recognized technical bottleneck in virtual environments.” Specifically, Applicant argues “The claim's architecture addresses that bottleneck by moving selection upstream to the server and limiting subsequent memory access and transmission to the "first portion of metadata" recited to render only the determined sequence.” Examiner begins by asserting, as stated above, that the claims architecture does not recite the argued “moving selection upstream to the server” but merely “determine that at least a threshold number of users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence” utilizing “a processor”. These steps are not actively performed utilizing the server as argued and therefore to not present the argued technical improvement. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues on pages 20-21 of the provided remarks, “the claim's population-level detection and thresholding provide the predicate that enables per-location selectivity, similar to how BASCOM leveraged server-side infrastructure to accomplish functionality that was not achievable in the same way on individual clients.” Specifically, Applicant argues “That end-to-end, server-anchored design is the BASCOM-style non-conventional arrangement that yields a concrete technology improvement.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, the claims do not recite “end-to-end, server-anchored design” as the claims do not recite the argued “server”. Claim 1 merely recites, “A system comprising: a memory; a processor communicatively coupled to a first user device associated with the first user and the memory; virtual environment” which would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues on page 21 of the provided remarks that “when viewed as an ordered combination, the claim elements form a coordinates data-handling architecture that is far from routine.” Citing the previously argued limitations, Applicant continues on to argue, “This multi-stage pipeline restructures where within the system key operations occur, how data is fetched, and how rendering is triggered. The Examiner has not demonstrated-and cannot demonstrate-that this end-to-end configuration was well-understood or conventional. Under BASCOM, such a targeted architectural improvement constitutes an inventive concept.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by stating, regarding Step 2B analysis, “the claims recite "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea because the additional elements, viewed together as an ordered combination, effect a specific, technology-based configuration that was neither conventional nor generic in virtual environment systems.” While Applicant argues a list of limitations, the following are additional elements, “(4) transmit only that subset ("transmit, to the first user device, only the first portion of the metadata that relates to the particular set of steps"); and (5) cause the device to render only that sequence ("render in the virtual environment only the determined particular set of steps in the determined particular sequence")”. These steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 21-22 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the claim ties the alleged idea to a concrete, server-anchored pipeline that imposes structural constraints on how data is handled”. Citing the previously argued claim limitations, Applicant continues on to argue that the claims present “a prescriptive sequence that (i) conditions memory addressing on a prior server- side determination, (ii) limits network payloads to a subset keyed to that determination, and (iii) deterministically drives device-side rendering behavior as an immediate consequence. The claim covers and end-to-end selectivity and causation chain, not in any one element considered in isolation.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts as stated above that the claims do not recite the argued “server-anchored pipeline” as the claims do not recite the argued “server”. Claim 1 merely recites, “A system comprising: a memory; a processor communicatively coupled to a first user device associated with the first user and the memory; virtual environment” which would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 22 to argue “considered against what was routine, the ordered combination reconfigures the location and timing of data operations in a way that yields concrete performance gains.” Contrasting conventional systems, Applicant argues “the claimed arrangement shifts the decision upstream to the server (after population-level, thresholded detection) and then fetches and sends only the assets needed for the determined path.” As argued previously, the claims architecture does not recite the argued “moving selection upstream to the server” but merely “determine that at least a threshold number of users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence” utilizing “a processor”. Applicant continues on to argue “Such coordinated selectivity across storage, transmission, and rendering was not the well- understood default; it is the particular configuration that produces the improvement.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claimed transmission and rendering would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, Applicant argues “the additional elements do more than "apply it on a computer." While Applicant argues that the claims recite “capabilities that, in combination, depart from routine data handling: cross-user event logging and aggregation to satisfy a threshold; path-to-metadata indexing that enables partial, addressable retrieval; conditional network transmission rules that enforce the "only" constraint; and a rendering pipeline that reacts to the selective payload to present "only" the determined steps in the determined order”, Examiner asserts, as stated above, that only the argued “conditional network transmission rules that enforce the "only" constraint; and a rendering pipeline that reacts to the selective payload to present "only" the determined steps in the determined order” fall under additional elements. Additionally, while Applicant argues “conditional network transmission rules that enforce the "only" constraint” the claimed “transmit, to the first user device, only the first portion” does not recite the argued “conditional network transmission rules” but recites at a high-level the transmission of data to the user device. Further, while Applicant argues “a rendering pipeline that reacts to the selective payload to present "only" the determined steps in the determined order” the claimed “selective payload” is not present within the claimed “render in the virtual environment”. The claimed transmission and rendering would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, regarding Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues “the Examiner has not identified (and cannot plausibly identify) any evidence that this particular arrangement-population-level detection followed by path-keyed partial retrieval and transmission that causes device-side rendering to be limited to that path-was well-understood, routine, and conventional at the relevant time.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts as stated above and below within the present rejection contains evidence that the particular arrangement of additional elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 23 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “Part III: Critical Analysis of Flaws in the Examiner’s 101 Rejection” beginning with “A. The Examiner’s Characterization of the Abstract Idea Is Overbroad and Unsupported”. Applicant argues on page 23, “Examiner’s characterization ignores the specific technical limitations of the claims-particularly the selective accessing and transmission of only a first portion of metadata for rendering”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the analysis under prong 1 does not ignore limitations but highlight specific limitations that recite the abstract idea. As stated above, the selective accessing was addressed as reciting the abstract idea of mental processes. The transmission of only a portion of metadata was addressed in Prong 2 and Step 2B analysis. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 23-24 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that “The “Mental Process” Characterization Is Technically Implausible”. Specifically, Applicant argues “a human being cannot mentally monitor, in real-time, the navigation paths taken by multiple users in a distributed computing environment, aggregate that data, and determine threshold patterns of behavior.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claim recites “monitor a set of steps performed by each of a plurality of users to complete a first task in a virtual environment”. The claims do not recite, as argued, “mentally monitor, in real-time, the navigation paths taken by multiple users”. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed monitoring of a set of steps performed is an observation of the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 24 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “B. The Examiner’s Step 2A, Prong Two Analysis Misapplies MPEP Guidance” and begins by arguing “1. The Examiner Erroneously Dismisses the Technical Improvement as “Incidental”. Specifically on page 24 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues, “The improvement is not simply "reducing data volume" in a generic sense-it is the specific technical method by which metadata is selectively accessed and transmitted based on prior analysis of user behavior patterns.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the previous argument presented by Applicant stated “Reducing the amount of metadata that needs to be accessed, processed, and transmitted by the server eases processing load on the server”. Therefore, the previously argued improvement by Applicant stated that the technical advantage of the claim “reduced the amount of metadata that needs to be processed for rendering virtual objects in the virtual environment at the user device”. Examiners argument regarding the incidental nature of the system was in direct response to the previous argument.
Applicant continues on page 25 of the provided remarks to argue “2. Examiner’s Reliance on PTAB Decision 2023-002258 Is Misplaced”. Specifically, Applicant argues “the Examiner does not explain how the facts of that decision are analogous to the present claims.” As stated above, the previously argued improvement by Applicant stated that the technical advantage of the claim “reduced the amount of metadata that needs to be processed for rendering virtual objects in the virtual environment at the user device”. The cited PTAB decision addresses similar arguments regarding the reduction in the number of requests received as an improvement to the overall system. This reduction in the amount of data received by the system is analogous to the previously argued reduction in the amount of metadata that is processed.
Continuing on page 25 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “3. The Examiner Incorrectly Characterizes the Metadata Transmission as “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”. Specifically, Applicant argues “the selective metadata access and transmission is not a pre-solution data gathering – it is the claimed technical solution that achieves the improvement described in the specification.” Examiner begins by stating that the selective metadata access was not included in the identification of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, per MPEP 2106.05(g) “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” Examiner asserts that the high-level recitation of the transmission of data steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, on pages 25-26 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “C. The Examiner’s Step 2B Analysis Fails to Properly Consider the Ordered Combination’. Specifically, Applicant argues “the Examiner fails to properly analyze the claimed elements as an “ordered combination”” and cites “(1) monitoring user steps to determine a threshold pattern; (2) selectively accessing only the metadata for the determined steps; (3) transmitting only that metadata for rendering; and (4) rendering only the determined steps” as the assumed ordered combination. Examiner asserts, as stated above, regarding Step 2B analysis, “the claims recite "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea because the additional elements, viewed together as an ordered combination, effect a specific, technology-based configuration that was neither conventional nor generic in virtual environment systems.” While Applicant argues a list of limitations, the following are additional elements, “(3) transmitting only that metadata for rendering; and (4) rendering only the determined steps”. These steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 26-28, filed 02/10/26, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of 11/10/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 28, filed 02/10/26, with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The non-statutory double patenting rejection of 11/10/25 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: limitation beginning "each time a user" recites "the same particular" which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (system), 8 (method), and 15 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), claim 8 directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite performing a first task in a virtual environment, comprising: monitoring a set of steps performed by each of a plurality of users to complete the first task in the virtual environment, wherein at least two or more users of the plurality of users perform a different set of steps to complete the first task; each time a user performs a particular set of steps in a particular sequence that was previously performed by one or more other users to complete the first task, incrementing a numerical counter by one, wherein the numerical counter represents a number of times the same particular set of steps was performed in the particular sequence by users to complete the first task; determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded a threshold; in response to determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded the threshold, determining that at least a threshold number of the users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence and that the particular set of steps in the particular sequence is a most popular sequence of steps to perform the first task; receiving from a first user device a user credential associated with a first user, wherein the user credential provides the first user access to the virtual environment; authorizing, based on the user credential, a first avatar of the first user to enter the virtual environment; receiving from the first user device a request from the first user to perform the first task in the virtual environment; in response to receiving the request, accessing from the memory a first portion of metadata relating to a plurality of steps that can be performed to complete the first task, wherein the first portion relates only to the particular set of steps of the plurality of steps; transmitting, to the first user device, only the first portion of the metadata that relates to the particular set of steps for rendering the particular set of steps on the first user device, wherein transmitting only the first portion of the metadata causes the first user device to render in the virtual environment only the particular set of steps from the plurality of steps; rendering in the virtual environment the determined particular set of steps in the determined particular sequence; and processing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence when performed by the first user to complete the first task in the virtual environment. (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are performing a first task including each time a user performs a particular set of steps in a particular sequence that was previously performed by one or more other users to complete the first task, incrementing a numerical counter by one, wherein the numerical counter represents a number of times the same particular set of steps was performed in the particular sequence by users to complete the first task; based on determining that at least a threshold number of the users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence and that the particular set of steps in the particular sequence is a most popular sequence of steps to perform the first task; authorizing, based on the user credential, a first avatar of the first user to enter the virtual environment; and processing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence when performed by the first user to complete the first task in the virtual environment, which is managing personal behavior. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing a first task based on a particular sequence of determined steps, which recite the abstract idea of Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are performing a first task by monitoring a set of steps performed by each of a plurality of users to complete the first task in the virtual environment, wherein at least two or more users of the plurality of users perform a different set of steps to complete the first task; each time a user performs a particular set of steps in a particular sequence that was previously performed by one or more other users to complete the first task, incrementing a numerical counter by one, wherein the numerical counter represents a number of times the same particular set of steps was performed in the particular sequence by users to complete the first task; determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded a threshold; in response to determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded the threshold, determining that at least a threshold number of the users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence and that the particular set of steps in the particular sequence is a most popular sequence of steps to perform the first task; authorizing, based on the user credential, a first avatar of the first user to enter the virtual environment, and accessing a first portion of metadata relating to a plurality of steps that can be performed to complete the first task, which are observations, judgement, and evaluations of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing a first task based on a particular sequence of determined steps, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the determined particular set of steps; determining the threshold number of users to complete the first task; authorizing the first user; the data needed to perform the steps; and determining that a first step in the determined particular set of steps is being performed or has been completed by the first user. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior as well as mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Claims 7 and 14 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “stores a user credential associated with a first user (claim 1); receiving from the first user device a user credential associated with a first user, wherein the user credential provides the first user access to the virtual environment; receiving from the first user device a request from the first user to perform the first task in the virtual environment; in response to receiving the request, accessing from the memory a first portion of metadata relating to a plurality of steps that can be performed to complete the first task, wherein the first portion relates only to the particular set of steps of the plurality of steps; transmitting, to the first user device, only the first portion of the metadata that relates to the particular set of steps for rendering the particular set of steps on the first user device, wherein transmitting only the first portion of the metadata causes the first user device to render in the virtual environment only the particular set of steps from the plurality of steps; rendering in the virtual environment the determined particular set of steps in the determined particular sequence” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A system comprising: a memory; a processor communicatively coupled to a first user device associated with the first user and the memory; virtual environment; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 additionally recite “obtain from the memory, the first user credential registered for the first user with the first entity; and obtain from the memory, the second user credential registered for the second user with the second entity”; “loading onto the first user device data from the memory”; and “wherein the data needed to perform the subsequent second step comprises metadata to be used to render on the first user device one or more scenes associated with performing the second step in the virtual environment” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “processor” and “memory” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A system comprising: a memory; a processor communicatively coupled to a first user device associated with the first user and the memory; virtual environment; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 8-14; system claims 1-7; and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 15-20 recite “A system comprising: a memory; a processor communicatively coupled to a first user device associated with the first user and the memory; virtual environment; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Page 9 lines 8-24; Pages 9-10 lines 25-31 and 1-2; and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “stores a user credential associated with a first user (claim 1); receiving from the first user device a user credential associated with a first user, wherein the user credential provides the first user access to the virtual environment; receiving from the first user device a request from the first user to perform the first task in the virtual environment; in response to receiving the request, accessing from the memory a first portion of metadata relating to a plurality of steps that can be performed to complete the first task, wherein the first portion relates only to the particular set of steps of the plurality of steps; transmitting, to the first user device, only the first portion of the metadata that relates to the particular set of steps for rendering the particular set of steps on the first user device, wherein transmitting only the first portion of the metadata causes the first user device to render in the virtual environment only the particular set of steps from the plurality of steps; rendering in the virtual environment the determined particular set of steps in the determined particular sequence” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 additionally recite “obtain from the memory, the first user credential registered for the first user with the first entity; and obtain from the memory, the second user credential registered for the second user with the second entity”; “loading onto the first user device data from the memory”; and “wherein the data needed to perform the subsequent second step comprises metadata to be used to render on the first user device one or more scenes associated with performing the second step in the virtual environment” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “processor” and “memory” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a combination of claim limitations that, as drafted, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The prior art of the record fails to explicitly teach, disclose, or suggest the combination of claim limitations, including at least: each time a user performs a particular set of steps in a particular sequence that was previously performed by one or more other users to complete the first task, increment a numerical counter by one, wherein the numerical counter represents a number of times the same particular set of steps was performed in the particular sequence by users to complete the first task; determine that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded a threshold; in response to determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded the threshold, determine that at least a threshold number of users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence and that the particular set of steps in the particular sequence is a most popular sequence of steps to perform the first task. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Pike (U.S 2019/0392728 A1) discloses a system the monitors the user's actions in real-time within the virtual environment while the user is completing the assigned task and related subtasks. However, Pike fails to explicitly teach, disclose, or suggest, each time a user performs a particular set of steps in a particular sequence that was previously performed by one or more other users to complete the first task, increment a numerical counter by one, wherein the numerical counter represents a number of times the same particular set of steps was performed in the particular sequence by users to complete the first task; determine that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded a threshold; in response to determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded the threshold, determine that at least a threshold number of users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence and that the particular set of steps in the particular sequence is a most popular sequence of steps to perform the first task; in response to receiving the request, accessing from the memory a first portion of metadata relating to a plurality of steps that can be performed to complete the first task, wherein the first portion relates only to the particular set of steps of the plurality of steps; transmitting, to the first user device, only the first portion of the metadata that relates to the particular set of steps for rendering the particular set of steps on the first user device, wherein transmitting only the first portion of the metadata causes the first user device to render in the virtual environment only the particular set of steps from the plurality of steps.
Garay (U.S 2019/0340004 A1) discloses the use of action paths comprising sequences of steps performed by a user to efficiently perform tasks or resolve incidents. However, Garay fails to explicitly teach, disclose, or suggest, each time a user performs a particular set of steps in a particular sequence that was previously performed by one or more other users to complete the first task, increment a numerical counter by one, wherein the numerical counter represents a number of times the same particular set of steps was performed in the particular sequence by users to complete the first task; determine that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded a threshold; in response to determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded the threshold, determine that at least a threshold number of users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence and that the particular set of steps in the particular sequence is a most popular sequence of steps to perform the first task; in response to receiving the request, accessing from the memory a first portion of metadata relating to a plurality of steps that can be performed to complete the first task, wherein the first portion relates only to the particular set of steps of the plurality of steps; transmitting, to the first user device, only the first portion of the metadata that relates to the particular set of steps for rendering the particular set of steps on the first user device, wherein transmitting only the first portion of the metadata causes the first user device to render in the virtual environment only the particular set of steps from the plurality of steps.
Lehtiniemi (U.S 2021/0354035 A1) discloses providing to one or more users within a virtual environment, such as a virtual reality, augmented reality or mixed reality environment. However, Lehitiniemi fails to explicitly teach, disclose, or suggest, each time a user performs a particular set of steps in a particular sequence that was previously performed by one or more other users to complete the first task, increment a numerical counter by one, wherein the numerical counter represents a number of times the same particular set of steps was performed in the particular sequence by users to complete the first task; determine that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded a threshold; in response to determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded the threshold, determine that at least a threshold number of users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence and that the particular set of steps in the particular sequence is a most popular sequence of steps to perform the first task.
Richardson (U.S 2013/0073343 A1) disclose facilitating the management and completion of activities by both single and team users. However, Richardson explicitly teach, disclose, or suggest, each time a user performs a particular set of steps in a particular sequence that was previously performed by one or more other users to complete the first task, increment a numerical counter by one, wherein the numerical counter represents a number of times the same particular set of steps was performed in the particular sequence by users to complete the first task; determine that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded a threshold; in response to determining that the numerical counter has equaled or exceeded the threshold, determine that at least a threshold number of users of the plurality of users completed the first task in the virtual environment by performing the particular set of steps in the particular sequence and that the particular set of steps in the particular sequence is a most popular sequence of steps to perform the first task.
Therefore, the combination of claim limitations, when considered in view of the available field of prior art, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated.
However, the present claims are not in condition for allowance because the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as well as objected, as set forth in the current office action. Therefore, the claims are not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McManus, Erin A., et al. "The influence of avatar (self and character) animations on distance estimation, object interaction and locomotion in immersive virtual environments." Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on applied perception in graphics and visualization. 2011.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 7,673,340 B1
Cohen et al.
System And Method For Analyzing System User Behavior
US 11,537,495 B2
You et al.
Systems And Methods For Altering A Graphical User Interface
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624