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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to statutory subject matter and that the claims recite a practical application. The Examiner disagrees. The claims remain directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions the improvement comes through the use of the additional elements and not an improvement to the additional elements. When looked at individually or as an ordered combination, there is no practical application. Therefore, the claims are indeed directed to the recited abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
103
Applicant argues that the link did not work, so Applicant was unable to review the reference. While the link may no longer be functional, the reference, along with the link was provided in the most recent office action dated 12/29/2025. For the record, the link can be found at: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShieldAndroidTV/comments/94b1fk/disable_timeshift_in_live_channelsAccordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
a system receiving a communication from a consumer who wishes
to purchase a ticket for an event,
the system receiving a communication from the consumer
indicating which event the consumer wishes to view; and
the system receiving a communication from the consumer
indicating whether the consumer would like to purchase a ticket to attend the live event, and
the system communicating to cause the live event to be played
simultaneously with the live event, wherein the system further controls to play the live event only while eyes are detected;
and while in use by the consumer, the screening cannot be stopped, paused, or rewound by the consumer.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** 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)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of sales activities or behaviors and business relations but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “a twin screening system, virtual reality headset, memories, processors, VR”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, a twin screening system, virtual reality headset, memories, processors, VR. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
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 2106.05(f); - (a twin screening system, memories, processors.)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(VR; virtual reality headset)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. While Applicant’s claims appear eligible if a user decides to attend a virtual event, if a user decides to attend a live event, there is no practical application.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; moreover
claim 2 describes a VR access code; Claims 3-5 VR event and 6 VR screening, however, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20100312587 A1 in view of Lipton U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230216682 A1 in further view of Francis U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20220261073 A1 and “Reddit-Disable Time-shift in Live Channels”
As per Claim 1, Benson teaches a system receiving a communication from a consumer who wishes to purchase a ticket for an event (see para. 85-86), the system including multiple processors and memory devices (see para. 45);
the system receiving a communication from the consumer
indicating which event the consumer wishes to view (see para. 85-86); and
the system receiving a communication from the consumer
indicating whether the consumer would like to purchase a ticket to attend the live event (see para 85-89),
Benson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Lipton indicating whether the consumer would like to purchase a ticket to attend the event in virtual reality (VR), or both-(the live event) (see para. 182); and
the twin screening system communicating with at least one virtual reality headset
to cause the live event to be played on the at least one virtual reality headset
simultaneously with the live event (see para. 183 and 314). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Benson to include the teachings of Lipton to permit users to interact with one another in using digital avatars or other graphical representations (within the confines of the virtualized computing systems or network), as suggested by Lipton. Benson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Francis
wherein the system further controls the at least one virtual reality glasses to play the live event only while eyes are detected (see para. 82). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems of Benson and Lipton to include the teachings of Francis to accurately track the gaze of a user, as suggested by the cited portion of Francis.
Benson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Reddit wherein as in the "real" world, the VR screening cannot be stopped, paused, or rewound by the consumer (see pg. 1-“ herculese1”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems of Benson and Lipton and Francis to include the teachings of Reddit to limit the amount of unnecessary writing to a hard drive, as taught by the cited portion of Reddit.
As per Claim 2, Benson in view of Lipton and Francis teach the system of claim 1 as described above. Benson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Lipton the twin screening system providing the consumer with a VR access code (see para 35), wherein the consumer interacts with the system via a user interface that can be presented in a mobile device or a desktop computer, or any other well-known means of accessing web sites (see para. 182 and 314). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 3, Benson in view of Lipton and Francis teach the system of claim 1 as described above. Benson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Lipton the twin screening system providing a simultaneous start time for the VR event and the live event (see para. 182-183). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 4, Benson in view of Lipton and Francis teach the system of claim 1 as described above. Benson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Lipton further comprising the twin screening system providing a simultaneous start time for the VR event and the live event (see para. 182-183). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 5, Benson in view of Lipton and Francis teach the system of claim 1 as described above. Benson does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Lipton
the twin screening system providing a facility for one person to attend the live event and for another person to simultaneously attend the VR event and share the experience (see para. 183-184).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights