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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7-9, 12 and 17-18 are elected, in response to restriction.
Claims 2-6, 10-11, 13-16 and 19-20 are non-elected.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12 and 17-18 are pending.
Priority
This application 18/461,421, filed 09/05/2023 claims priority to:
Provisional 63/374,493, filed 09/02/2022 (effective filing date)
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant made an election of claims 1, 7-9, 12 and 17-18 in the reply filed on 04/21/2026. However, no statement was made indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed. MPEP 818.01 states that “The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse”. As such, Applicant's election without traverse of claims 1, 7-9, 12 and 17-18 in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-6, 10-11, 13-16 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention.
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, 7-9, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1 and 7-9 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 12 and 17-18 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1 and 12 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe service regulation within a geographic boundary area, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. Service regulation within a geographic boundary area is also grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A system, comprising:
a processor in communication with a memory, the memory including instructions accessible by the processor to:
access policy information regulating functionality of an MAR-App within a geographical boundary area;
access user attribute information associated with a user device, the user attribute information including values of one or more user attributes associated with the user device; and
preventing, based on the policy information and the user attribute information, operation of one or more services of the MAR-App at the user device when the user device is within the geographical boundary area.
Claim 12:
A method, comprising:
providing instructions within a memory executable by a processor to:
access policy information regulating functionality of an MAR-App within a geographical boundary area;
access user attribute information associated with a user device, the user attribute information including values of one or more user attributes associated with the user device; and
prevent, based on the policy information and the user attribute information, operation of one or more services of the MAR-App at the user device when the user device is within the geographical boundary area.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Pre-Grant Publication 0025, 0062, 0172-0177). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes service regulation within a geographic boundary area, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0025, 0062, 0172-0177). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the memory further including instructions executable by the processor to:
generate an access request for the user device requesting access to one or more services of the MAR-App at the user device, the access request including the user attribute information of the user device.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes service regulation within a geographic boundary area, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0025, 0062, 0172-0177). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the memory further including instructions executable by the processor to:
request approval from the user associated with the user device for access to the user attribute information by a provider device.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes service regulation within a geographic boundary area, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0025, 0062, 0172-0177). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the memory further including instructions executable by the processor to:
generate the access request for the user device requesting access to a room hosted in association with a provider device, the access request including the user attribute information of the user device and the room being associated with user regulation information that regulates user access to the room.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes service regulation within a geographic boundary area, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0025, 0062, 0172-0177). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
providing instructions within the memory executable by the processor to:
generate an access request for the user device requesting access to one or more services of the MAR-App at the user device, the access request including the user attribute information of the user device.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes service regulation within a geographic boundary area, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Pre-Grant Publication 0025, 0062, 0172-0177). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
providing instructions within the memory executable by the processor to:
generate the access request for the user device requesting access to a room hosted in association with a provider device, the access request including the user attribute information of the user device and the room being associated with user regulation information that regulates user access to the room.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claim 1 is directed to a product (e.g., "A system, comprising: ...”). For products, the claim limitations will define discrete physical structures or materials (See MPEP 2103(I)(C)). Here, claim 1 recites that the "system" comprises structural recitations of "a processor". However, claim 1 also recites “a processor in communication with a memory, the memory including instructions accessible by the processor to …”. It is unclear whether the memory also constitutes structure of the system, or is structure outside the scope of the system in which the processor is merely in communication with. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpretating the claim as the identified limitations defining structure of the system.
Claim 12 is directed to a process claim (e.g., “A method, comprising: …”). For processes, the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed (See MPEP 2103(I)(C)). Claim 12, however, recites limitations where it is unclear whether the limitations define steps or acts to be performed. Specifically, Claim 12 recites “A method, comprising: providing instructions … to: access … access … and prevent …”. The limitation “providing …” is a step or act to be performed. However, it is unclear whether limitations “access … access … and prevent …” define steps or acts to be performed, or whether they are the intended use of the “providing”. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpretating the claim as the identified limitations defining steps or acts to be performed.
Claims 17-18 are also rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12.
See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B) which states “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”
Claims 7-9 and 17-18 are also rejected per dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0105481 A1 (“Kreiner”).
Claims 1 and 12:
Kreiner discloses:
a processor in communication with a memory, the memory including instructions accessible by the processor to: [providing instructions within a memory executable by a processor to] (0023, 0068-0071)
access policy information regulating functionality of an MAR-App within a geographical boundary area; (0012, 0020-0021, 0024-0025)
access user attribute information associated with a user device, the user attribute information including values of one or more user attributes associated with the user device; and (0014, 0016, 0021, 0024-0025, 0056)
preventing, based on the policy information and the user attribute information, operation of one or more services of the MAR-App at the user device when the user device is within the geographical boundary area. (0020-0021, 0063-0064)
Claims 7 and 17:
Kreiner discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Kreiner further discloses:
the memory further including instructions executable by the processor to: [providing instructions within the memory executable by the processor to:] (0023, 0068-0071)
generate an access request for the user device requesting access to one or more services of the MAR-App at the user device, the access request including the user attribute information of the user device. (0014, 0016, 0018, 0041)
Claim 8:
Kreiner discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Kreiner further discloses:
the memory further including instructions executable by the processor to: (0023, 0068-0071)
request approval from the user associated with the user device for access to the user attribute information by a provider device. (0021)
Claims 9 and 18:
Kreiner discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Kreiner further discloses:
the memory further including instructions executable by the processor to: [providing instructions within the memory executable by the processor to:] (0023, 0068-0071)
generate the access request for the user device requesting access to a room hosted in association with a provider device, the access request including the user attribute information of the user device (0013-0014, 0016, 0041) and
the room being associated with user regulation information that regulates user access to the room. (0020, 0053, 0066)
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0334907 A1 to Bender et al. discloses: Aspects of the present invention define different boundary dimension values for different respective areas relative to a reference geographic location as a function of values of attributes of an event occurring at the location and of a user of an augmented reality device. Aspects thus render the area within a display of the reference geographic location by a display device of the user augmented reality device in a display format that visually distinguishes the visually rendered areas from each other within display of the reference geographic location, the format conveys different values of use permission determined for the user for each of the areas as a function of event and user attribute values; dynamically revise one of the boundary dimension values in response to a change in attribute value of the location and the event; and revise the area rendering as a function of the revised boundary dimension value.
US 2020/0309558 A1 to Cowburn et al. discloses: Example embodiments described herein therefore relate to an AR guidance system to perform operations that include: detecting a client device at a location within a geo-fenced area, wherein the geo-fenced area may include within it, a destination of interest; determining a route to the destination of interest from the location of the client device within the geo-fenced area; causing display of a presentation of an environment within an AR interface at the client device; detecting a display of real-world signage within the presentation of the environment; generating a media item in response to the detecting the display of the signage within the presentation of the environment, wherein the media item is based on the route to the destination of interest; and causing display of the media item within the AR interface based on the position of the signage within the presentation of the environment.
US 11,082,535 B2 to Fowe discloses: Various aspects of a location-enabled AR platform system and a method for interoperability of augmented reality (AR) applications are disclosed herein. In accordance with an embodiment, the location-enabled AR platform system may include a memory and a processor. The processor may be configured to provide a protocol for communication between a first AR application and a second AR application. The processor may be further configured to receive, from the first AR application, a first set of functionalities of a plurality of functionalities for exposure. The processor may be configured to provide an accessibility of the received first set of functionalities of the first AR application to the second AR application. The processor may be configured to control the second AR application to manipulate the at least one AR object in the AR content of the first AR application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights