11 and 15-DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 8/5/26 are hereby entered.
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 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
In regard to Claims 1, 15 and 20, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[an] object processing method in a [visual] scene […] the method comprising:
generating [a visual] scene using [an algorithm];
determining a field of view of [a visual] object in the [visual] scene;
controlling the [visual] object to move in the [visual] scene based on the field of view;
performing collision detection of 3D space on a [visual] environment where the [visual] object is located during movement of the [visual] object to obtain a detection result […];
controlling, in response to determining that an obstacle exists in a moving path of the [visual] object based on the detection result, the [visual] object to avoid the obstacle […].
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, mathematical concepts, and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and executed by an electronic device comprising a computer processor, employing obstacle occlusion determination based on ray detection and sweep scanning by employing PhysX, employing PhysX to simulate rigid body behaviors, determining physical attributes and position information of an obstacle and physical attributes of a virtual object and performing a kinematic simulation based on the determined motion behavior and the physical attributes and position information of the obstacle and the physical attributes of the virtual object by using PhysX; these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and executed by an electronic device comprising a computer processor, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing, and/or employing obstacle occlusion determination based on ray detection and sweep scanning by employing PhysX, employing PhysX to simulate rigid body behaviors, determining physical attributes and position information of an obstacle and physical attributes of a virtual object and performing a kinematic simulation based on the determined motion behavior and the physical attributes and position information of the obstacle and the physical attributes of the virtual object by using PhysX. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F2 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; and see, e.g., p48-49, 137, 140 and 142 in regard to employing obstacle occlusion determination based on ray detection and sweep scanning by employing PhysX; see, e.g., p157 in regard to employing PhysX to simulate rigid body behaviors; see, e.g., p142 and 160 regarding determining physical attributes and position information of an obstacle and physical attributes of a virtual object and performing a kinematic simulation based on the determined motion behavior and the physical attributes and position information of the obstacle and the physical attributes of the virtual object by using PhysX.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 16 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
518
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant includes references numerous limitations here that are not, in fact, alleged in the rejection to be part of the abstract idea that can be performed mentally. What is more, Applicant’s claimed abstract idea can be performed mentally to the extent that, e.g., it can be likened to the mental process followed by a dungeon master (DM) in Dungeons and Dragons deciding where to move a physical game piece on a game board representing a non-player character (NPC) based on the location of other objects on the board. In terms of, the DM determining what the NPC’s field of view, controlling the NPC’s movements based on that field of view and avoiding collisions with objects during those movements. For these reasons, Applicant’s claimed limitations may also be likened to the rules of a game.
Applicant argues on page 17 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image2.png
566
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Preventing game pieces from colliding with one another in a game is not a technological improvement, in terms of it does not result in the claimed processor or memory being able to generally run faster, use less power, and/or be able to be manufactured more cheaply. And to the extent that the embodiment of Applicant’s abstract idea executing as computer code may result in reduced “hardware resource consumption” and or “object processing efficiency” that is merely an artifact of Applicant’s computerized embodiment and not a generally applicable improvement to the claimed processor and/or memory. In terms of the claimed processor and/or memory receives no “improvement” in regard to its execution of any program other than the one embodying Applicant’s abstract idea.
Applicant argues on page 18 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image3.png
306
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because “ray emission within a simulated 3D scene, geometric sweep queries returning a blocking point, and kinematic simulation from mass, speed, inertia, and material” are all functions disclosed by the Applicant to be performed by PhysX and, thereby, not any improvement to computer animation.
Applicant argues on page 19 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image4.png
306
698
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the 101 rejection specifically references the portions of the Applicant’s specification that provide the Berkheimer evidence that the elements claimed in addition to its abstract idea are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A): “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements…in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights