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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 contain the limitations of “performing obstacle occlusion determination based on ray detection by a physical computation engine of the 3D physical simulation engine, including controlling the AI object to send a ray from a position of the AT object to a position where a virtual object in the field of view is located, receiving object information intersecting with the ray, receiving obstacle information when the virtual object is blocked by an obstacle, and determining that the obstacle exists in a corresponding direction based on the obstacle information, and performing sweep scanning by the physical computation engine to check whether the obstacle exists when the AI object moves in a specified direction and distance and to obtain position information of a blocking point”, and Applicant’s specification provides no algorithms as to how these claimed functions would be performed.
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, mathematical concepts, 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); claim mathematical concepts as outlined at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I); 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, comprising performing obstacle occlusion determination based on ray detection […] including controlling the [visual] object to send a ray from a position of the [visual] object to a position where [an] object in the field of view is located, receiving object information intersecting with the ray, receiving obstacle information when the […] object is blocked by an obstacle, and determining that the obstacle exists in a corresponding direction based on the obstacle information, and performing sweep scanning […] to check whether the obstacle exists when the [visual] object moves in a specified direction and distance and to obtain position information of a blocking point,
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, comprising determining physical attributes and position information of the obstacle and physical attributes of the [visual] object […] the physical attributes including at least one of mass, speed, inertia, or material, and determining a motion behavior corresponding to avoiding the obstacle based on the physical attributes and position information of the obstacle and the physical attributes of the [visual] 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 [visual] object..
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, and/or employing obstacle occlusion determination based on ray detection by employing 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 employing 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 and 142 in regard to employing obstacle occlusion determination based on ray detection by employing PhysX.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101 that its claimed invention is analogous to McRO to the extent that Applicant allegedly claims “a concrete rule based technique for collision handling.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant discloses that is claimed collision handling is implemented by merely relying on the PhysX engine to perform this function. Based on this lack of disclosure as to how exactly the PhysX engine would perform collision handling this function must be well-known, routine, and conventional, otherwise Applicant’s claims in this regard would not be enabled. And to that extent Applicant does not claim either a “practical application” or “significantly more” than its abstract idea in this regard. In short, relying on an off the shelf software suite of PhysX to perform Applicant’s alleged inventive concept is not analogous to the novel use of the specific morph rules claimed and disclosed in McRO.
Applicant’s argument in regard to Thales is unavailing because Applicant’s claimed invention does not improve the precision/accuracy of any physical sensor and to the extent that Applicant’s claimed invention may result in the improved precision/accuracy of some mathematical computation (“improves the accuracy and robustness of simulated movement”) that is not patent eligible subject matter. See the CAFC’s decision in, e.g., In re: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (2020-1288; 3/25/21) in this regard.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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