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. Claims 1-24 are currently pending for examination. 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 1-24 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As per claims 1, 21, and 23 , the limitations of “ associating a feature with a tag , associating the tag with an action , detecting the feature associated with the tag , or triggering a device to implement the action based on the detected tag ” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no additional elements for consideration. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. As per claim 2, the limitations of “ associating the tag with a type ” and “ associating the type with the action ”, as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under Prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. As per claim 3 , the limitation of “ sending a signal configured to cause a change in a color of a light source ”, is considered mere sending/receiving of digital information. This additional limitation does not amount to significantly more, and is not considered to provide an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 4, the limitation of “ sending a signal configured to cause a change in a brightness of a light source ”, is considered mere sending/receiving of digital information. This additional limitation does not amount to significantly more, and is not considered to provide an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 5, the limitation of “ sending a signal configured to vibrate a game controller ”, is considered mere sending/receiving of digital information. This additional limitation does not amount to significantly more, and is not considered to provide an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 6, the limitation of “ sending a signal configured to cause a change in a set point of a thermostat ”, is considered mere sending/receiving of digital information. This additional limitation does not amount to significantly more, and is not considered to provide an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 7 , the limitation “ the action includes text to speech audio and triggering the device to implement the action includes playing the text to speech audio through a speaker ”, is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 8 , the limitation “ the action includes changing from a first button mapping profile to a second button mapping profile for a game controller. ”, is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 9 , the limitation “ changing from the first button mapping profile to the second button mapping profile for the game controller includes changing a sensitivity of one or more of a mouse, a joystick, a thumbstick and a pressure sensitive button ”, is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 10 , the limitation “ the action includes changing application control input from a first game controller to a second game controller ”, is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 11 , the limitation “ triggering the device to implement the action based on the tag includes sending a signal configured to cause a messaging device to vibrate or display a message or both vibrate and display a message ” , is considered mere sending/receiving of digital information. This additional limitation does not amount to significantly more, and is not considered to provide an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 12 , the limitation “ the messaging device is a cellular phone ” , is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 13 , the limitation “ the messaging device is a sign board ” , is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 14 , the limitation “ the feature includes an asset from the application ” , is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 15 , the limitation “ the feature includes a map element from the application ” , is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 16 , the limitation “ the feature includes an event from the application ” , is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 17 , the limitation “ detecting the feature associated with the tag includes detecting when the feature is displayed on a screen ” as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under Prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. As per claim 18 , the limitation “ detecting the feature associated with the tag includes detecting a proximity of the feature to a detection point ” as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under Prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. As per claim 19 , the limitation “ the action includes displaying a bounding box at the perimeter of a screen ” , is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim 20 , the limitation “ the action includes displaying a bounding box around the feature ” , is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claim s 22 and 24 , the limitations of “ associating the tag with a type ” and “ associating the type with the action ”, as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The limitation of “ triggering the device to implement the action according to the type ”, is merely the use of a computer/software to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. As per claims 23 and 24 , they recite a “computer readable medium”. The specification does not explicitly define “’A computer readable medium’ excludes signals and/or carrier waves”. Since it does not exclude transitory “signal” storing computer-readable code within relatively short amount of time, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification encompasses that the computer-readable medium is signal per se. Thus, the claim is not eligible subject matter. 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 1-2, 14, 16, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rainbolt (US 11654363 B1). As per claim 1, Rainbolt discloses: A method for enhancing accessibility for an application, comprising: a) associating a feature with a tag; b) associating the tag with an action; c) detecting the feature associated with the tag; d) triggering a device to implement the action based on the detected tag. ( "As mentioned, interactions such as physics-based collisions in many conventional games are based upon one-to-one relationships of actions to specific objects. In some embodiments the actions can be represented by tags that are attached to an object. A “tag” as referred to herein can include any data or metadata that is associated with an element of a game, that can be used to determine or define some aspect or, or relating to, that element. This can include an entry in a table for the element, metadata stored with the element, etc.", col.3, lines 15-24 ; " The tags can be used to determine an interaction rule to be enforced when that object interacts with another object in the environment, or an event rule to be enforced for the occurrence of a type of event in the environment, etc. This can include, for example, determining an animation, sound, or action to trigger for the event or interaction.", col.2, lines 5-11 ) As per claim 2 , Rainbolt discloses: a) further comprises associating the tag with a type and b) further comprises associating the type with the action. ( "The tag may be one of a set of tags defined or provided for a game, in order to provide for simplified management of the game, wherein similar objects or elements can have the same tags, or types of tags, applied, which can help to also provide for more consistent gameplay if the same types of objects or elements have the same types of interactions associated with them.", col.3, lines 24-30 ) As per claim 1 4 , Rainbolt discloses: the feature includes an asset from the application. ( " In one embodiment a rules system enables a developer to set up the various relationships and expressions and then save that information to an asset file. The file can then be saved to a gaming repository. When a developer then wants to create a new gameplay entity, in the same game or a different game, the developer can look at a list of available rules, tags, expressions, collision matrices, etc., and can select the appropriate option if it exists.", col.6, lines 38-52 ) As per claim 16, Rainbolt discloses: the feature includes an event from the application. ( "In particular, various approaches provide for the management of interactions between objects, and other such events, in a virtual environment, such as a gaming or artificial reality environment. Each object, or type of object, added to a gaming application can have one or more tags applied. The tags can be used to determine an interaction rule to be enforced when that object interacts with another object in the environment, or an event rule to be enforced for the occurrence of a type of event in the environment, etc. This can include, for example, determining an animation, sound, or action to trigger for the event or interaction.", col.2, lines 1-11 ) As per claim 18, Rainbolt discloses: detecting the feature associated with the tag includes detecting a proximity of the feature to a detection point ( "The interaction of the gameplay element, such as through proximity in space or other types of interaction, can be determined 806. In order to determine the type of actions to take for the interaction, the tags for the gameplay element and the other object of the interaction can be determined 808", col.15, lines 50-55 ) As per claim 21, Rainbolt discloses: A system for enhancing accessibility for an application, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; non-transitory instructions in the memory that when executed by the processor cause the processor to carry out the method for enhancing accessibility for the application comprising: (“ Storage media and other non-transitory computer readable media for containing code, or portions of code, can include any appropriate media known or used in the art, such as but not limited to volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions “, col.19, lines 27-33 ; “ A system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to ”, clm.16) a) associating a feature with a tag; b) associating the tag with an action; c) detecting the feature associated with the tag; d) triggering a device to implement the action based on the detected tag. ( "As mentioned, interactions such as physics-based collisions in many conventional games are based upon one-to-one relationships of actions to specific objects. In some embodiments the actions can be represented by tags that are attached to an object. A “tag” as referred to herein can include any data or metadata that is associated with an element of a game, that can be used to determine or define some aspect or, or relating to, that element. This can include an entry in a table for the element, metadata stored with the element, etc.", col.3, lines 15-24 ; " The tags can be used to determine an interaction rule to be enforced when that object interacts with another object in the environment, or an event rule to be enforced for the occurrence of a type of event in the environment, etc. This can include, for example, determining an animation, sound, or action to trigger for the event or interaction.", col.2, lines 5-11 ) As per claim 22 , Rainbolt discloses: a) further comprises associating the tag with a type wherein b) further comprises associating the type with the action and wherein d) further comprises triggering the device to implement the action according to the type. ( "The tag may be one of a set of tags defined or provided for a game, in order to provide for simplified management of the game, wherein similar objects or elements can have the same tags, or types of tags, applied, which can help to also provide for more consistent gameplay if the same types of objects or elements have the same types of interactions associated with them.", col.3, lines 24-30 ; " The tags can be used to determine an interaction rule to be enforced when that object interacts with another object in the environment, or an event rule to be enforced for the occurrence of a type of event in the environment, etc. This can include, for example, determining an animation, sound, or action to trigger for the event or interaction.", col.2, lines 5-11 ) As per claim 23, it is a computer readable medium (see Rainbolt : [col.19, lines 27-42]) claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. As per claim 24, it is a computer readable medium claim comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 22, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. 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 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainbolt (US 11654363 B1) in view of Summa (US 20210236944 A1) As per claim 3, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose sending a signal configured to change a color of a light source. However, Summa discloses: triggering the device to implement the action based on the detected tag includes sending a signal configured to cause a change in a color of a light source. ( "Alternatively or in addition, the directional lighting feedback event may include modifying a color of light generated by one or more of a plurality of light sources of the lighting device. For example, an LED color may be selected based on a type of the event, such as by selecting a red or orange color for an explosion event.", 0111 ) The system of Rainbolt in view of Summa would be capable of modifying a color of a light based on a detected tag. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rainbolt with those of Summa to provide the system with the ability to enhance the accessibility and immersion of the media experience by adjusting ambient light (Summa, [0111]). As per claim 4, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose sending a signal configured to change a brightness of a light source. However, Summa discloses: triggering the device to implement the action based on the detected tag includes sending a signal configured to cause a change in a brightness of a light source. ( "Alternatively or in addition, the directional lighting feedback event may be based on the virtual distance 214. For example, an intensity of light generated by the light sources 242, 244, and 246 may be increased for a smaller virtual distance 214 (e.g., to indicate that the sound 210 appears to be close to the reference object 206)", 0110 ) As per claim 5, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose sending a signal to vibrate a game controller. However, Summa discloses: triggering the device to implement the action based on the tag includes sending a signal configured to vibrate a game controller. ( "Alternatively or in addition, the sound metadata 208 may enable the haptic feedback device 250 to perform a directional haptic feedback event during an in-game event of one or more in-game events 204. In some examples, the haptic feedback device 250 may be configured to selectively activate one or more of the actuators 252, 254, and 256 based on an identification of the one or more in-game events 204 indicated by the sound metadata 208.", 0112 ) As per claim 10, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose changing control input from a first to a second game controller. However, Summa discloses: the action includes changing application control input from a first game controller to a second game controller. ( "In additional examples, one or more other gameplay features can be changed, such as the positions of the AV streams, the assignment of players to the AV streams (e.g., by changing which player controls a certain character)", 0008 ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rainbolt with those of Summa to provide the system with increased versatility and adaptability (Summa, [0111]). Claims 6-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainbolt (US 11654363 B1) in view of Shararay (US 20210142571 A1) As per claim 6, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose sending a signal to change a set point of a thermostat. However, Shararay discloses: triggering the device to implement the action based on the tag includes sending a signal configured to cause a change in a set point of a thermostat. ( " In step 214, the processing system may send one or more signals to one or more actuators (or devices including actuators) that are capable of producing the physical effects selected in step 212. The signals may control the one of more actuators to produce physical effects in the real world that match estimated physical effects of the one or more actuators in the real world. For instance, if a physical effect comprising the raising of an ambient temperature to simulate a sudden heat surge produced by an explosion, then the processing system may send a signal to a smart thermostat to raise the ambient temperature to a specified temperature for a specified amount of time.", 0041 ) It wou ld have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Rainbolt with those of Shararay in order to provide the media augmentation system with the ability to enhance the accessibility and immersion of the experience by changing a set point of a thermostat to influence the ambient temperature ( Shararay , [0038]). As per claim 7, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose playing the text to speech audio through a speaker . However, Shararay discloses: the action includes text to speech audio and triggering the device to implement the action includes playing the text to speech audio through a speaker ("The input/output devices 306 may include, for example, a camera, a video camera, storage devices (including but not limited to, a tape drive, a floppy drive, a hard disk drive or a compact disk drive), a receiver, a transmitter, a speaker, a display, a speech synthesizer , an output port, and a user input device (such as a keyboard, a keypad, a mouse, and the like), or a sensor.", 0055 ; Examiner Note: the presence of a speech synthesizer provides for the ability to play text to speech audio) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Rainbolt with those of Shararay in order to provide the media augmentation system with the ability to play text to speech, thereby increasing the capabilities of the system ( Shararay , [0055]). As per claim 11, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose c aus ing a messaging device to vibrate or display a message . However, Shararay discloses: triggering the device to implement the action based on the tag includes sending a signal configured to cause a messaging device to vibrate or display a message or both vibrate and display a message. ( "Similarly, if a physical effect comprises a rumble to simulate the tremors that may be caused by an explosion, then the processing system may send a signal to a rumble mechanism in a gaming chair, a gaming controller, a mobile phone, or the like to generate a rumble of a specified intensity for a specified amount of time.", 0041 ) As per claim 12, Rainbolt in view of Shararay fully discloses the limitations of claim 11, but does not disclose the messaging device being a cellular phone. However, Shararay discloses: the messaging device is a cellular phone. ( "Similarly, if a physical effect comprises a rumble to simulate the tremors that may be caused by an explosion, then the processing system may send a signal to a rumble mechanism in a gaming chair, a gaming controller, a mobile phone, or the like to generate a rumble of a specified intensity for a specified amount of time.", 0041 ) As per claim 13, Rainbolt in view of Shararay fully discloses the limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, Rainbolt discloses: the messaging device is a sign board ("The device typically will include some type of display screen 906, such as a touch screen, electronic ink (e-ink), organic light emitting diode (OLED) or liquid crystal display (LCD), although devices such as portable media players might convey information via other means, such as through audio speakers.", col.16, lines 18-23 ; Examiner Note: the ‘some type of display screen’ corresponds to a sign board) Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainbolt (US 11654363 B1) in view of Dorn (US 11806630 B1) . As per claim 8, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose changing from a first button mapping profile to a second button mapping profile . However, Dorn discloses: the action includes changing from a first button mapping profile to a second button mapping profile for a game controller. ( " When a potential performance deficiency is identified, a user may be provided with a set of selections that allow the user to be provided with training content (e.g., overlay or other informational notification), participate in a training session or that may allow the user to change functions of the same or different gaming controller (e.g., button mapping) to account for the apparent performance deficiency. This additional training or change in controller functions may allow a user to have a more enjoyable user experience or may allow the user to perform at a higher level.", col.3, lines 5-14 ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Rainbolt with those of Dorn in order to provide the media augmentation system with the ability to enhance the accessibility and enjoyability of the experience by changing a first button mapping profile to a second, easier, button mapping profile (Dorn, [ col.3, lines 5-14 ]). As per claim 9, Rainbolt in view of Dorn fully discloses the limitations of claim 8, but does not disclose changing a sensitivity of a pressure sensitive button. However, Dorn discloses: changing from the first button mapping profile to the second button mapping profile for the game controller includes changing a sensitivity of one or more of a mouse, a joystick, a thumbstick and a pressure sensitive button. ("Such changes may include changing a sensitivity of a steering function. A controller button may be made less sensitive when making an over steering of a vehicle less likely. As such, user selections may allow a user to change the tempo of a game or sensitivity of a gaming button to allow the user to have more fun playing the game", col.7, lines 33-49) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainbolt (US 11654363 B1) in view of Long (US 20170157512 A1) . As per claim 15, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the feature being a map element. However, Long discloses the feature includes a map element from the application. ( "Map data and logic analyzer 354 may analyze different areas of a game map or minimap , to determine optimal virtual camera locations that are more likely to capture exciting or critical gaming moments during a game play.", 0110 ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Rainbolt with those of Long in order to provide the media augmentation system with the ability to detect and highlight critical gaming moments (Long, [0080]). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainbolt (US 11654363 B1) in view of Mahlmeister (US 20230063610 A1) . As per claim 17, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose detecting when the feature is displayed on a screen . However, Mahlmeister discloses: detecting the feature associated with the tag includes detecting when the feature is displayed on a screen ( "In one or more embodiments, the video game server 1402 can detect a current trigger during a video game and record a trigger clip. A trigger is an event in the video game that a player may find significant and/or if reviewed, improve player performance in the future. Examples of triggers can include when a player makes a kill, makes a hit, takes a hit, loss of life, fired upon, implements weapon fire, loss of life of another player, change in ammunition, etc. A player may want to review triggers so as to avoid such actions/events (e.g. loss of life, takes a hit, fired upon, etc.) or to continue the actions/events (e.g. makes a kill, makes a hit, etc.) to improve video game performance in the future. A trigger clip is a portion of the video game that is recorded that contains the trigger. As described herein, a video game may have a sliding window of game content that it continuously records portions of the video game. Once the video game server 1402 identifies a trigger, the video game server 1402 can process the recorded sliding window/recorded portion of video game content that contains the trigger as the trigger clip. Further, the trigger clip can be provided and presented to a player for the player's review.", 0275 ; Examiner Note: detecting a trigger clip equates to detecting when the feature is displayed on screen) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Rainbolt with those of Mahlmeister in order to enhance the accessibility and improve video game performance through review of trigger events ( Mahlmeister , [0275]). Claim s 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainbolt (US 11654363 B1) in view of Todd ( US 20210344991 A1 ) . As per claim 1 9 , Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a bounding box around the perimeter of the screen . However, Todd discloses: the action includes displaying a bounding box at the perimeter of a screen (“ FIG. 3 shows an embodiment of a logical representation of a video container 44 being resized and positioned on a television or display device 38 . The network computing device 39 displays the video container bounding box rectangle or video container representation 45 . The network computing device 39 such as a mobile or PC device may act as a user interface and allow the viewer or user to resize the video container representation 45 shown on the network computing device 39 and then transmits a command over a communications network 22 to the media processing system 24 . ”, 0334 ; Examiner Note: the bounding box may be resized to the perimeter of the screen) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Rainbolt with those of Todd in order to provide the media augmentation system with the ability to indicate the location of a video container (Todd, [0334]). As per claim 20, Rainbolt fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a bounding box around a feature . However, Todd discloses: the action includes displaying a bounding box around the feature (“ The layered content stream may include outlines of recognized objects or persons of interest, labelling of recognized objects or persons of interest, highlighting of recognized objects or persons of interest, and the like. ”, 0557) Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lutz (US 20210205706 A1) – discloses a method for maintaining a virtual space for a gaming environment, including repeatedly activating an event zone in the virtual space. Resnick (US 20230044961 A1) – discloses a method for automatically generating and distributing haptics; the method comprising determining features of media content and generating a set of haptic data based on evaluating the features. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROSS MICHAEL VINCENT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1408 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:30PM . 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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014 . 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. /R.M.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 2196 /APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196