DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 10/06/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/06/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on pages 11-12 of the remarks that the claimed invention is directed to a practical application of an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on pages 13-14 of the remarks that the claimed invention is directed to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 15) are directed, in part to a method, a system and a computer program product for scheduling activities through virtual reality. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-4, 7 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 8-11, 14 are directed to a computer system, which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 15-18 are directed to a computer program product, comprising one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior or interactions between people.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to scheduling activities through virtual reality (VR)… receiving real-time data relating to a predicted event and historical data relating to a corresponding past event, wherein the historical data includes one or more forgotten activities a user failed to perform during the corresponding past event; identifying a context of the predicted event based on the real-time and the historical data; generating a VR simulation of the predicted event based on the identified context and the historical data, wherein the VR simulation includes an avatar of the user in a surrounding environment of the predicted event; wherein the VR simulation of the predicted event is a re- creation of the corresponding past event having a similar context; scheduling one or more activities for the user in response to one or more scheduling actions of the user, wherein scheduling the one or more activities for the user further comprises: presenting the user with a holographic media progress bar during the VR simulation that is configured to be interacted with by the user; and adding the scheduled one or more activities to a digital calendar on a mobile device of the user based on the interaction of the user with the holographic media progress bar; and recommending one or more additional activities to the user based on the historical data, wherein the recommendation is a digital image overlay of an item associated with the scheduled one or more activities displayed adjacent to the holographic media progress bar, wherein recommending the one or more additional activities to the user further comprises: feeding the historical data into a convolutional neural network (CNN) to train the CNN, wherein the historical data fed into the CNN includes the one or more forgotten activities the user failed to perform during the corresponding past event as well as one or more other activities the user did perform during the corresponding past event as detected by a virtual reality (VR) headset of the user, and wherein the trained CNN outputs the recommended one or more additional activities to the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “virtual reality”; “A computer system”; “one or more processors”; “one or more computer-readable memories”; “one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figure 1 and related text and [0024-0026] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Computer 101 may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, smart watch or other wearable computer, mainframe computer, quantum computer or any other form of computer or mobile device now known or to be developed in the future that is capable of running a program, accessing a network or querying a database, such as remote database 130. As is well understood in the art of computer technology, and depending upon the technology, performance of a computer-implemented method may be distributed among multiple computers and/or between multiple locations. On the other hand, in this presentation of computing environment 100, detailed discussion is focused on a single computer, specifically computer 101, to keep the presentation as simple as possible. Computer 101 may be located in a cloud, even though it is not shown in a cloud in Figure 1. On the other hand, computer 101 is not required to be in a cloud except to any extent as may be affirmatively indicated. Processor set 110 includes one, or more, computer processors of any type now known or to be developed in the future. Processing circuitry 120 may be distributed over multiple packages, for example, multiple, coordinated integrated circuit chips. Processing circuitry 120 may implement multiple processor threads and/or multiple processor cores. Cache 121 is memory that is located in the processor chip package(s) and is typically used for data or code that should be available for rapid access by the threads or cores running on processor set 110. Cache memories are typically organized into multiple levels depending upon relative proximity to the processing circuitry. Alternatively, some, or all, of the cache for the processor set may be located “off chip.” In some computing environments, processor set 110 may be designed for working with qubits and performing quantum computing. Computer readable program instructions are typically loaded onto computer 101 to cause a series of operational steps to be performed by processor set 110 of computer 101 and thereby effect a computer-implemented method, such that the instructions thus executed will instantiate the methods specified in flowcharts and/or narrative descriptions of computer-implemented methods included in this document (collectively referred to as “the inventive methods”). These computer readable program instructions are stored in various types of computer readable storage media, such as cache 121 and the other storage media discussed below. The program instructions, and associated data, are accessed by processor set 110 to control and direct performance of the inventive methods. In computing environment 100, at least some of the instructions for performing the inventive methods may be stored in block 200 in persistent storage 113.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625