DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 10 November 2025.
Claims 1, 9-10, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. As an initial note, method claim 1 is still devoid of structure whatsoever and thus cannot amount to anything more than the abstract idea. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not a certain method of organizing human activity, the Examiner notes that creating an environment from a template and documenting ownership and contributions is a function that has traditionally existed (think tanks, work groups, brainstorming sessions, consulting, Kaizens, workshops, company retreats, etc.), regardless of traditional business analog. Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., creating an environment from a template and documenting ownership and contributions) to a particular technological environment (i.e., digitally/electronically via the use of generic computers or computing components). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept - MPEP 2016.05(f). The claims recitation of the ““digital environment” “artificial intelligence,” “machine learning,” and “blockchain”” only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). An abstract idea does not become non abstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as a computer, does not confer patent eligibility); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (“[L]imiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . d[oes] not make the concept patentable.”). If it is determined that the patent is drawn to an abstract idea or otherwise ineligible subject matter, at a second step we ask whether the remaining elements, either in isolation or combination with the non-patent ineligible elements, are sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012)). Put another way, there must be an “inventive concept” to take the claim into the realm of patent eligibility. Id. at 2355. A simple instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“[M]ere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible idea into a patent eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it’’ is not enough for patent eligibility.’” (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294)). As such, the arguments are not persuasive, and the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
When determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, Examiners are now instructed to identify specific limitations in the claims that recites an abstract idea and determine whether those limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings. As outlined in this Office action and the previous, the Examiner identified specific limitations in the claims that fall within one of the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas, explained why the claims failed to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and explained why the claims did not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner further reiterates that the above conclusions rely on the Office’s current guidance, the MPEP, and the Applicants’ specification. The burden is now on the applicants to either amend the claims or demonstrate why the claims are patent-eligible. As such, the arguments are not persuasive, and the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
This argument also appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased usability and accessibility integrates the claims; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency (or usability and accessibility) inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). As such, the arguments are not persuasive, and the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the Berquam reference does not teach the drag and dropping of selections to codelessly customize, in real time, the creation, management and functionality of the digital environment; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, this is precisely what the Berquam reference teaches in how “For example, a menu of meshes and/or physical spaces may be provided to a user (e.g., a grid designer or an end user). A user may select a listed mesh or physical space. A user interface may display all or a portion of the mesh in combination with an image or model of the corresponding physical environment. The programs, content, and/or available interactions associated with a given cell/data cube may be displayed (e.g., optionally in response to touch or pointing at the cell with a finger or camera-equipped device). The user may then point at or touch a data cube and drag it (and its associated programs, content, triggers, etc.) from one location in the 3D mesh (corresponding to a first physical space) to and drop it on another location in the 3D mesh (corresponding to a second physical space). For example, if a data cube is dragged to a different location (e.g., the location of another data cube), the dragged data cube may replace the previous data cube. Optionally, the dragged data cube may be automatically replaced with an “empty” data cube that does not have any programs, actions, commands, and/or content associated with it, (Berquam ¶73)” which is clearly discussing how a user is able to drag and drop “it” wherein “it” is the data cube and all of its associated programs (i.e. code) content, triggers (again, software or program code) etc. This is expressly recited in “To facilitate the quick creation of an interactive environment, and reduce the computer resources needed to create an interactive environment, data, commands, rules, triggers, programs (e.g., computer executable code), and/or actions (and associated time periods when such data, commands, rules, and/or actions are active) associated with a given cell (or set of cells) may be copied and pasted by a user via a corresponding interface (e.g., a graphical user interface that displays a representation of the cells) to one or more other cells or sets of cells (e.g., by pasting the copied items on a representation of the cell) (Berquam ¶43).” As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not withdrawn.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has amendments not properly annotated and are therefore non-compliant. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states: (2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.” Since the amendments are minor, and for the sake of compact prosecution, the claims have been objected to rather than the Examiner issuing a notice of non-complaint amendment. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) creating an environment from a template and documenting ownership and contributions from users which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “creating a digital environment from a template configured to create a no-code drag and drop functionality; documenting ownership and contributions by each of the one or more users; compensating the one or more users in response to ownership and contributions as the digital environment is monetized” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). Method claim 1 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus only amounts to an abstract idea. For claims 10 and 15, other than reciting “A system for generating one or more digital environment, comprising: a plurality of electronic devices an interface application, the interface application is configured to communicate one or more digital environments and a platform configured to implement artificial intelligence and machine learning logic in a digital platform environment configured for creating an interactive digital environment, wherein the platform is configured as a single source platform; the platform accessible by the plurality of wireless electronic devices executing the interface application through one or more networks...,” in claim 10 or “A digital environment management platform, comprising: a processor for executing a set of instructions; a memory including a digital ledger and for storing the set of instructions, wherein the instructions are executed to:” in claim 15 from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “executing the interface application” or “a processor for executing a set of instructions” language, “creating/create(s)” and “documenting/document(s)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually organizing or tracking which users own or have contributed content to some sort of environment which is a managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people or even commercial or legal interactions (in the form of licenses or professional contributions to a project or intellectual property). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). Again, method claim 1 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus only amounts to an abstract idea. The ”communicating one or more tools associated with a field of the digital environment; receiving content, and drag-and-drop selections from one or more users wherein when the used, the drag and drop selections codelessly customize in real time the creation, management, and functionality of the digital environment, wherein improving usability and accessibility, for at least the non-coding users” is/are simply insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities. Next, claims 10 and 15 only recites one additional element – “executing the interface application” or “a processor for executing a set of instructions” to perform the steps. The “executing the interface application” or “a processor for executing a set of instructions” in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data query, storage, and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “digital environment” “artificial intelligence,” “machine learning,” and “blockchain” is/are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Again, method claim 1 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus only amounts to an abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using “executing the interface application” or “a processor for executing a set of instructions” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the ”communicating one or more tools associated with a field of the digital environment; receiving content, and drag-and-drop selections from one or more users wherein when the used, the drag and drop selections codelessly customize in real time the creation, management, and functionality of the digital environment, wherein improving usability and accessibility, for at least the non-coding users” step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2, 4-5, 12-13, and 16-17 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 15. Therefore, claims 2, 4-5, 12-13, and 16-17 recite the same abstract idea of “creating an environment from a template and documenting ownership and contributions from users.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including additional elements directed towards organizing human activities (compensation, following a contract) which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 15, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 3, 8-9, and 19 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 15. Therefore, claims 3, 8-9, and 19 recite the same abstract idea of “creating an environment from a template and documenting ownership and contributions from users.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the data and how the data is tracked or monitored, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 15, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 6-7, 11, 14, 18, and 20 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 15. Therefore, claims 6-7, 11, 14, 18, and 20 recite the same abstract idea of “creating an environment from a template and documenting ownership and contributions from users.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the environment (virtual room, virtual reality) which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 15, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsson et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0398538 and further in view of Berquam et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0286501).
As per claims 1, 10, and 15, Jakobsson discloses a method for creating a digital environment, a system for generating one or more digital environment, comprising: a plurality of electronic devices an interface application, the interface application is configured to communicate one or more digital environments and a platform configured to implement artificial intelligence and machine learning logic in a digital platform environment configured for creating an interactive digital environment, wherein the platform is configured as a single source platform; the platform accessible by the plurality of wireless electronic devices executing the interface application through one or more networks, and a digital environment management platform, comprising: a processor for executing a set of instructions; a memory including a digital ledger and for storing the set of instructions, wherein the instructions are executed to: the method comprising (interface, memory, processor, Jakobsson ¶14; system, platform, configuration engine, ¶44; blockchain networks, ¶154 and ¶156; machine learning techniques, and/or artificial intelligence scripts, ¶386):
creating a digital environment from a template (platforms for collaborative development of content may be implemented. Collaborative development platforms in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can allow users to collaborate on developments while maintaining rights and policies of individual contributors. Platforms may incorporate multiple features directed to collaborative development including but not limited to executable elements, graphical content, and layout templates. Platforms for collaborative development may incorporate various tools targeted to the development of games including, but not limited to, configuration engines. Configuration engines may establish pre-made constructs to incorporate into subsequent games, Jakobsson ¶129; see also other uses of templates, ¶324, ¶339-¶340 and ¶348);
communicating one or more tools associated with a field of the digital environment (The search engine can determine, from the available games and platforms, which ones can be allowed by the associated terms, and may then rank those based on criteria that Bob specifies in the search engine, such as that the game must be appealing to toddlers. Alice, when developing her game from the template of her choice, can identify portions of the data, such as banner logos, that may not be included in the licensing of her game, as a platform, to other developers. When Bob starts to configure games based on the platform and Alice's configurations, he may have to choose a design for such areas, e.g., by using an archive provided in the template and/or external graphic design tools, ¶341; To configure a game based on a platform, a developer may use a freestanding tool, and/or a tool built into the platform. Configuration tools in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can present options related to the platform and enable the game developer to make selections. In one usage scenario, the game developer starts with a set of pre-made configurations and modifies one or more of these and/or adds one or more optional configurations. In one usage scenario, the developer starts without any selected configurations. Instead, he selects building blocks and configures these. Configurations in accordance with various embodiments of the invention may include uploading of digital art, and/or selection of digital art from associated archives, ¶344);
receiving content, and selections from one or more users (uploading content, Jakobsson ¶313-¶315);
documenting ownership and contributions by each of the one or more users in blockchain (A content creator system 1210 capable of disseminating content in an NFT platform in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is illustrated in FIG. 12. The memory system 1260 of the content creator computer system may include an operating system 1240 and a content creator application 1250. The content creator application 1250 may enable the content creator computer system to mint NFTs by writing smart contracts to blockchains via the network interface 1230. The content creator application can include sets of content creator wallet (CCW) keys 1270 that can include a public key/private key pairs. Content creator applications may use these keys to sign NFTs minted by the content creator application. The content creator application can also implement some or all of the various functions described above with reference to content creators as appropriate to the requirements of a given application in accordance with various embodiments of the invention, Jakobsson ¶192; In accordance with many embodiments of the invention, NFTs may include a number of rules and policies 1510. Rules and policies 1510 may include, but are not limited to access rights information. In some embodiments, rules and policies 1510 may also state terms of usage, royalty requirements, and/or transfer restrictions. An NFT 1500 may also include an identifier 1530 to affirm ownership status. In accordance with many embodiments of the invention, ownership status may be expressed by linking the identifier 1530 to an address associated with a blockchain entry, ¶205);
compensating the one or more users in response to ownership and contributions as the digital environment is monetized (collaboration systems may determine the cost to hire users as a function of their reputation scores. For example, Bob may have minimum requirements indicating who can access and/or make suggestions for content for him, and also have a pay scale that indicates the payment for various tasks, based on one or more scores, such as the novelty reputation score and the collaborative reputation score. In certain embodiments, various other scores can be used. For example, an activity reputation score can indicate how active users are, e.g., whether they are available within 24 h and/or a week; whether they return approved results faster and/or slower than average, etc. Activity reputation scores in accordance with several embodiments of the invention may indicate how many tasks the user has completed, and/or the estimated effort associated with these tasks, where each task can be associated with some quantity of effort, such as “10 minutes” and/or “two days”. In a number of embodiments, effort quantifiers may be determined based on the actual amount of time it took to complete, the estimated time needed before it was completed, and/or another measure of quantity. For example, Bob may indicate that the proofreading of a given chapter, if approved, can result in a payment of $10 for users with a certain score exceeding 78, but in a payment of $30 for users for whom the same score exceeds 90. Bob may also assign bonuses. In many embodiments, payments may depend on the assessment of unrelated third parties that can be commissioned to assess the quality of the contribution, and/or by an ML component that assigns a payment within a given range based on metrics such as the success of the content in a marketplace. Different users may be associated with different payments and/or time constraints. Users having a very high novelty score may be more valuable to engage and/or may be paid more than users having a lower novelty score, Payments in accordance with numerous embodiments of the invention may be provided as one-time fixed payments associated with the task performed, and/or as royalties based on the profits. Royalties may be a fixed share of the total royalties given to the main content creator. A combination of such payments may also be provided Jakobsson ¶295-¶296).
While Jakobsson discloses as shown above, including the ability for creators and developers to make selections, Jakobsson does not expressly disclose doing so via drag-and-drop
However, Berquam teaches configured to create a no-code drag and drop selections; wherein when the used, the drag and drop selections codelessly customize in real time the creation, management, and functionality of the digital environment, wherein improving usability and accessibility, for at least the non-coding users (For example, a menu of meshes and/or physical spaces may be provided to a user (e.g., a grid designer or an end user). A user may select a listed mesh or physical space. A user interface may display all or a portion of the mesh in combination with an image or model of the corresponding physical environment. The programs, content, and/or available interactions associated with a given cell/data cube may be displayed (e.g., optionally in response to touch or pointing at the cell with a finger or camera-equipped device). The user may then point at or touch a data cube and drag it (and its associated programs, content, triggers, etc.) from one location in the 3D mesh (corresponding to a first physical space) to and drop it on another location in the 3D mesh (corresponding to a second physical space). For example, if a data cube is dragged to a different location (e.g., the location of another data cube), the dragged data cube may replace the previous data cube. Optionally, the dragged data cube may be automatically replaced with an “empty” data cube that does not have any programs, actions, commands, and/or content associated with it, Berquam ¶73; wherein programmed actions are associated with the cells, ¶35 and ¶39; To facilitate the quick creation of an interactive environment, and reduce the computer resources needed to create an interactive environment, data, commands, rules, triggers, programs (e.g., computer executable code), and/or actions (and associated time periods when such data, commands, rules, and/or actions are active) associated with a given cell (or set of cells) may be copied and pasted by a user via a corresponding interface (e.g., a graphical user interface that displays a representation of the cells) to one or more other cells or sets of cells (e.g., by pasting the copied items on a representation of the cell), ¶43).
Both the Jakobsson and Berquam references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with content creation/collaboration environments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Berquam’s ability to drag and drop different types of data/cubes/associated programs within a collaborative environment in Jakobsson’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a collaboration management system that is able to allow more efficient creation of content to be shared.
The motivation being that to facilitate the quick creation of an interactive environment, and reduce the computer resources needed to create an interactive environment, data, commands, rules, triggers, programs (e.g., computer executable code), and/or actions (and associated time periods when such data, commands, rules, and/or actions are active) associated with a given cell (or set of cells) may be copied and pasted by a user via a corresponding interface (e.g., a graphical user interface that displays a representation of the cells) to one or more other cells or sets of cells (e.g., by pasting the copied items on a representation of the cell) (Berquam ¶43).
The Examiner also notes that the drag-and-drop selections from users are simply a design choice which would be obvious to try as there is a finite number of predictable types of choosing or making selections (See MPEP 2144.05.B).
In addition, the Examiner asserts that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses (See MPEP 2111.04). In the instant case, the recited wherein clause "wherein when the used, the drag and drop selections codelessly customize in real time the creation, management, and functionality of the digital environment, wherein improving usability and accessibility, for at least the non-coding users" is not a positive method step as it do not require any actual positive recited claim steps to be performed; nor does it modify any of the positively claimed method steps. Also, the recited “wherein improving usability and accessibility, for at least the non-coding users” is simply reciting the intended use of the claim and is not a positive step or element that structurally limits the claim.
As per claims 2, 13, and 16, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 15. Jakobsson further discloses further comprising: licensing the digital environment or portions of the digital environment to third parties (license rules, licensing of content, Jakobsson ¶327 and ¶331).
As per claim 3, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Jakobsson further discloses wherein the portions of the digital environment include content uploaded to the digital environment (uploading content, Jakobsson ¶313-¶315).
As per claims 4 and 17, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 15. Jakobsson further discloses compensating the one or more users for utilization of the digital environment or content associated with the digital environment (Collaboration systems in accordance with certain embodiments of the invention may implement a metering system that determines what sources can be used, and provides feedback that can be used for billing of the consumer as well as crediting content providers. This may include one or more components that may provide information that can be used to determine billing and crediting events as well as a consistency verification that is beneficial for purposes of fraud detection. For example, a consumer device may include a metering unit that collects and presents data that is periodically sent to a billing unit that may be a service provider on the backend. In addition, a gateway device may also include a metering unit that collects and sends metering information to the billing unit. The metering information generated by the gateway device may be less complete than the metering information sent by the consumer device, and may, for example, leave out information related to some sources that it does not process, such as a content source that may not convey data over the Internet but instead loads content from storage associated with the consumer device, Jakobsson ¶379).
As per claim 5, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claim 4. Jakobsson further discloses wherein the one or more users are compensated according to terms of a smart contract (In addition, the smart contracts 108 underlying the NFTs can cause payments of residual royalties 116 when users engage in specific transactions involving NFTs (e.g. transfer of ownership of the NFT), Jakobsson ¶134).
As per claims 6-7, 14, and 18, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 15. Berquam further teaches establishing a lounge and one or more rooms for the digital environment; embedding virtual objects, decorations, and functionalities with associated content and links within the digital environment (As will be described, visual design tools and interfaces may be provided which enable users to define an interactive environment. Such tools and interfaces may enable a user to view a visualization of a physical space (e.g., a model of photograph), lay out active areas within the physical space, indicate which user interactions are to take place and at which geo-spatial locations such actions are to take place, and associate various types of content with geo-spatial locations. The user can then preview and test the defined interactive environment. When the defined interactive environment is ready to be deployed, the defined interactive environment may be published immediately (at which point the interactive environment is active and ready for interaction with users) or a user may schedule the interactive environment publication to become active on a designated date and time, Berquam ¶90) (Examiner interprets the ability to design any room as being able to design or establish a lounge or waiting room).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Berquam’s ability to create rooms in an augmented reality collaboration space in Jakobsson’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a collaboration management system that is able to allow more efficient creation of content to be shared.
The motivation being that to facilitate the quick creation of an interactive environment, and reduce the computer resources needed to create an interactive environment, data, commands, rules, triggers, programs (e.g., computer executable code), and/or actions (and associated time periods when such data, commands, rules, and/or actions are active) associated with a given cell (or set of cells) may be copied and pasted by a user via a corresponding interface (e.g., a graphical user interface that displays a representation of the cells) to one or more other cells or sets of cells (e.g., by pasting the copied items on a representation of the cell) (Berquam ¶43).
As per claim 8, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claim 6. Berquam further teaches enabling communications functions within the lounge or one or more rooms (interaction module, with AR headsets, communicate, Berquam ¶146-¶147 and ¶214; messaging, ¶130).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Berquam’s ability to create rooms in an augmented reality collaboration space in Jakobsson’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a collaboration management system that is able to allow more efficient creation of content to be shared.
The motivation being that to facilitate the quick creation of an interactive environment, and reduce the computer resources needed to create an interactive environment, data, commands, rules, triggers, programs (e.g., computer executable code), and/or actions (and associated time periods when such data, commands, rules, and/or actions are active) associated with a given cell (or set of cells) may be copied and pasted by a user via a corresponding interface (e.g., a graphical user interface that displays a representation of the cells) to one or more other cells or sets of cells (e.g., by pasting the copied items on a representation of the cell) (Berquam ¶43).
As per claims 9 and 19, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claims 4 and 15. Jakobsson further discloses tracking engagements and biometrics of participants within at least the digital environment (engagements between first and second users, Jakobsson ¶235; Access governance rights may include, but are not limited to, whether a party can indicate their relationship with the wallet; whether they can read summary data associated with the content; whether they have access to peruse the content; whether they can place bids to purchase the content; whether they can borrow the content, and/or whether they are biometrically authenticated, ¶197).
As per claims 11 and 20, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claims 10 and 15. Berquam further teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of electronic devices include virtual reality headsets, and wherein the digital environment is a virtual reality environment; wherein the digital environment is communicated to a plurality of wireless headsets that visually display the digital environment and the content (interaction module, with AR headsets, communicate, Berquam ¶146-¶147 and ¶214; messaging, ¶130).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Berquam’s ability to create rooms in an augmented reality collaboration space in Jakobsson’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a collaboration management system that is able to allow more efficient creation of content to be shared.
The motivation being that to facilitate the quick creation of an interactive environment, and reduce the computer resources needed to create an interactive environment, data, commands, rules, triggers, programs (e.g., computer executable code), and/or actions (and associated time periods when such data, commands, rules, and/or actions are active) associated with a given cell (or set of cells) may be copied and pasted by a user via a corresponding interface (e.g., a graphical user interface that displays a representation of the cells) to one or more other cells or sets of cells (e.g., by pasting the copied items on a representation of the cell) (Berquam ¶43).
As per claim 12, Jakobsson and Berquam disclose as shown above with respect to claim 10. Jakobsson further discloses wherein the system is a blockchain system, and wherein the digital environment and the content are saved in a digital ledger in communication with the system (A content creator system 1210 capable of disseminating content in an NFT platform in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is illustrated in FIG. 12. The memory system 1260 of the content creator computer system may include an operating system 1240 and a content creator application 1250. The content creator application 1250 may enable the content creator computer system to mint NFTs by writing smart contracts to blockchains via the network interface 1230. The content creator application can include sets of content creator wallet (CCW) keys 1270 that can include a public key/private key pairs. Content creator applications may use these keys to sign NFTs minted by the content creator application. The content creator application can also implement some or all of the various functions described above with reference to content creators as appropriate to the requirements of a given application in accordance with various embodiments of the invention, Jakobsson ¶192; In accordance with many embodiments of the invention, NFTs may include a number of rules and policies 1510. Rules and policies 1510 may include, but are not limited to access rights information. In some embodiments, rules and policies 1510 may also state terms of usage, royalty requirements, and/or transfer restrictions. An NFT 1500 may also include an identifier 1530 to affirm ownership status. In accordance with many embodiments of the invention, ownership status may be expressed by linking the identifier 1530 to an address associated with a blockchain entry, ¶205).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights