The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the claims
The following is in response to the communication filed 9/26/2025. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a machine, claims 12-15 are directed to a process, and claims 16-18 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 1-18 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
A system comprising:
…a production management system… configured to execute a first portion of the instructions to monitor an assembly process progress state of a vehicle to generate work status information; and …service operation system …configured to execute a second portion of the instructions to build a … environment to include a … factory environment modeled as an image-based … space of a real world factory where the vehicle is manufactured; update the …environment to depict a process currently in progress for the vehicle within the … factory environment based on the work status information, wherein, to update the … to depict the process currently in progress for the vehicle within the … factory environment based on the work status information, …execute the second portion of the instructions to: determine a work currently in progress on the vehicle in the real-world factory corresponding to the …factory environment based on the work status information; and simulate,…the work currently in progress on the vehicle, before the vehicle leaves the real-world factory corresponding to the … factory environment, using … images of the work currently in progress to render the work in progress on the vehicle in the real-world factory in real-time within the…factory environment; and to transmit data … to a … customer.
The above limitations recite the concept(s) of tracking the progress of a vehicle being assembled. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Specifically, the limitations recite concepts similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis as shown in paragraph [0004] of the specification. Furthermore, the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the invention relates to marketing or sales activities. This is illustrated in [0004] of the Specification, describing the invention as relating to the sale of vehicles. Independent claims 12 and 16 recite similar concepts as those recited in claim 1 and accordingly fall within the same groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1,12, and 16 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 12, and 16 recite additional elements, such as: one or more processors, memory storing instructions, a metaverse service operation system, a virtual factory/space, updating a metaverse environment, executing the metaverse environment to a terminal of a customer, a terminal, a metaverse environment, animation effects simulate, withing the virtual factory environment, and transmitting data.. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 12, and 16 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Applying an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 12, and 16 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., tracking the progress of a vehicle being assembled being applied on a general-purpose computer with generic metaverse and virtual reality. See MPEP 2106.05(f). . Likewise, claims 1, 12, and 16 specifying that the abstract idea of tracking the progress of a vehicle being assembled is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 16 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 12, and 16 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 12, and 16 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 12, and 16, these claims recite additional elements, such as one or more processors, memory storing instructions, a metaverse service operation system, a virtual factory/space, updating a metaverse environment, executing the metaverse environment to a terminal of a customer, a terminal, a metaverse environment, animation effects simulate, withing the virtual factory environment, and transmitting data. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 16 are manual processes, (e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, etc.). The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 12, and 16 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 12, and 16 specifying that the abstract idea of tracking the progress of a vehicle being assembled is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 12, and 16 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-18 further fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Additionally, the claims further fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 11, 13-15, and 17-18 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 7, 9, and 10 further identify additional elements, such as a virtual market, an avatar of the customer, and a character representing a vehicle. Similar to discussion above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although addition computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-18 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 12, and 16, dependent claims 2-6, 8, 11, 13-15, and 17-18, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method i.e., tracking the progress of a vehicle being assembled being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, these limitations generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-18 are ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
In regards to claim 1, Senesac discloses
A system (and related methods) comprising one or more processors;
a memory storing instructions for execution by the one or more processors; ( [0016]):
a production management system executing on the one or more processors and configured to execute a first portion of the instructions to: monitor an assembly process progress state ( [0040] ) of a vehicle to generate work status information ([0117] the status may indicate that work is to be performed, has been completed, is in progress, is unassigned, has been planned, is on hold, has been canceled, or some other suitable status for shop order instance 500.”);
a metaverse service operation system executing on the one or more processors and configured to execute a second portion of the instructions to: build a metaverse environment to include a virtual factory environment modeled as an image-based virtual space of a factory ([0126-0128] – “graphical user interface 700 displays buildings 702 including building 704, building 706, and building 708…each building in buildings 702 in graphical user interface 700 represents a location where manufacturing of aircraft occurs…Turning now to FIG. 8, an illustration of a graphical user interface of aircraft positions in a building is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment.”) where the vehicle is manufactured ( [0128] Examiner notes figure 8 shows a virtual factory environment and a vehicle being assembled in that environment.)., to update the metaverse environment to … for the vehicle within the virtual factory environment ([0129] Examiner notes Fig. 8 shows different parts being added to vehicle at different locations). …, and transmit data for executing the metaverse environment to a terminal of a customer ([0187-0192] Instructions for the operating system, applications, and/or programs may be located in storage devices… [0188] [0192] The different embodiments may be implemented using any hardware device or system capable of running program code 1718”) but does not specifically disclose depict a process currently in progress… based on work status information; determine a work currently in progress on the vehicle in the real world factory corresponding to the virtual factory environment based on the work status information; and simulated within the virtual factory environment, the work currently in progress on the vehicle, before the vehicle leaves the real world factory corresponding to the virtual factory environment, using animation effects and images of the work currently in progress to render the work in progress on the vehicle in the real world factory in real time within the virtual factory environment.
(JP ‘074) discloses global smart manufacturing with real time progress provided with animations and images in 3D, depict a process currently in progress… based on work status information (JP ‘074) wherein, to update the metaverse environment to depict the process currently in progress for the vehicle within the virtual factory environment based on the work status information (JP ‘074 “View the entire factory supply chain information in real time, ensuring that each supply chain process is all controlled in real time, simultaneously statistics in real time, information from supply end to demand end, companies give timely feedback And coordinate, make quick decisions, and provide complete information services.”), the metaverse service operation system is configured to execute the second portion of the instructions to: determine a work currently in progress on the vehicle in the real-world factory corresponding to the virtual factory environment based on the work status information (JP ‘074 “Smart decision service builds virtual factory, simulates order execution, simulates routine, simulates manufacturing process, based on 3D modeling and VR display of production process, smart manufacturing experience data,”); and simulate, within the virtual factory environment, the work currently in progress on the vehicle, before the vehicle leaves the real-world factory corresponding to the virtual factory environment, using animation effects and images of the work currently in progress to render the work in progress on the vehicle in the real-world factory in real-time within the virtual factory environment See JP “3D modeling and VR display service of production process is the most main display method of service process statistical analysis service, 3D model of factory smart infrastructure / equipment 57, smart manufacturing equipment 66, central warehouse and smart logistics equipment through VR technology. Create and combine the data collected by the real-time data collection service 98 and the real-time data exchange of the information management system, and display the entire real-time process of product production on the central monitoring platform and / or remote customer end inside the factory by the VR method. , A virtual factory will be built, and users will be able to directly know the production status of products and the operation status of equipment.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the tracking process manufacturing system of Senesac the ability to use the smart decision service, update a metaverse environment to depict the process currently in progress in real time and simulate the work currently in the process of JP ‘074 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. A person of ordinary skill would have understood prior art teachings, or what a person of ordinary skill would have known or could have done.
In regards to claim 2, Wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to place a graphical object representing the vehicle (Senesac: [0056] – “object visualization system 134 may provide a visualization of object 102 to operators 122 [0085] – “object visualizer 204 is configured to identify a model of object 102, such as aircraft 104”) in an area within the virtual factory environment where the process currently in progress is being performed (Senesac: [0126-0127] – “ With reference to FIG. 7, an illustration of a graphical user interface for identifying a model of an aircraft for viewing is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, graphical user interface 700 displays buildings 702 including building 704, building 706, and building 708. [0127] In this particular example, each building in buildings 702 in graphical user interface 700 represents a location where manufacturing of aircraft occurs. Each building may correspond to a database of aircraft that are manufactured within the building.”; Examiner notes Fig. 7 Shows different sections of factory where assembly is said to take place), and to depict the process currently in progress by using the graphical object (Senesac: [0126-0127] – “With reference to FIG. 7, an illustration of a graphical user interface for identifying a model of an aircraft for viewing is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, graphical user interface 700 displays buildings 702 including building 704, building 706, and building 708. [0127] In this particular example, each building in buildings 702 in graphical user interface 700 represents a location where manufacturing of aircraft occurs. Each building may correspond to a database of aircraft that are manufactured within the building.”.
In regards to claim 3, wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to identify a module being assembled in the vehicle based on the work status information (Senesac: [0057] – “In other words, parts 106 may be present at different times or positions in positions 114. Object visualization system 134 provides operators 122 an ability to visualize these different conditions of assembly for aircraft”), and to provide information about the module in the metaverse environment (Senesac: [0083] – “Inventory database 230 contains information about parts. Inventory database 230 may include information about whether parts are in stock, when parts will be delivered, the number of parts available, or other suitable types of information”).
In regards to claim 4, (Senesac: [0123] – “although the illustrative examples are described with respect to an aircraft, an illustrative embodiment may be applied to other objects other than aircraft, such as, for example, without limitation, a vehicle”) … depict a situation where the vehicle (Senesac: [0123] – “although the illustrative examples are described with respect to an aircraft, an illustrative embodiment may be applied to other objects other than aircraft, such as, for example, without limitation, a vehicle”) …but does not specifically disclose
in response to the… having left a factory and being transported, the metaverse service operation system is further configured to update the metaverse environment to depict a situation where… is being transported in the metaverse environment
However, JP 074 teaches in response to the… having left a factory and being transported , the metaverse service operation system is further configured to update the metaverse environment to depict a situation where ()… is being transported in the metaverse environment (JP 074 “View the entire factory supply chain information in real time, ensuring that each supply chain process is all controlled in real time, simultaneously statistics in real time, information from supply end to demand end, companies give timely feedback And coordinate, make quick decisions, and provide complete information services.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Senesac JP 074 because Senesac teaches the assembly of an item in a factory and JP074 simply teaches tracking the item after it has left the origin which is well known in the art. Additionally it would have been obvious to include in response to the… having left a factory and being transported, the metaverse service operation system is further configured to update the metaverse environment to depict a situation where… is being transported in the metaverse environment to help the user manage and track shipments as shown in After merging and collecting the manufactured products during the execution process, collecting them in the central warehouse and distribution facility 100 of the regional manufacturing platform, delivering them to the customer through the smart delivery service 97, and confirming the receipt of the customer, the global payment system 4 automatically Pay the order product price to the appropriate manufacturer of the specification JP074.).
In regards to claim 5, wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to build the metaverse environment to further include a virtual vehicle depicted to have a same vehicle environment as the vehicle (Senesac: [0078] – “the planned state may be based on the past position, current position, or the future position of aircraft 104 in positions 114. In other words, graphical representations 214 may be generated for any position that has occurred, is currently present, or planned for aircraft [0075] As depicted, object visualizer 204 also may be configured to generate graphical representations 214 for states 226 of object 102. In these illustrative examples, states 226 may be used for object 102 in the form of aircraft 104. In other words, aircraft 104 may have different parts in parts 106 that are installed at different states within states 226”).
In regards to claim 11, wherein, in response to a message to be transmitted to a worker assembling the vehicle being received from the terminal (Senesac: [0061] – “Graphical user interface 208 is configured to provide an interface for operators 122 in FIG. 1 to interact with object manager 124… graphical user interface 208 may be displayed on display system 209… [0057] “Information 128 may be used when operators 122 perform tasks 118 with respect to parts 106 to assemble aircraft 104”), the metaverse service operation system is further configured to transmit the message to a terminal of the worker (Senesac: [0061] – ““Graphical user interface 208 is configured to provide an interface for operators 122 in FIG. 1 to interact with object manager 124… graphical user interface 208 may be displayed on display system 209”).
In regards to claim 13, placing a graphical object representing the vehicle (Senesac: [0056] – “object visualization system 134 may provide a visualization of object 102 to operators 122 [0085] – “object visualizer 204 is configured to identify a model of object 102, such as aircraft 104”) of the customer (Senesac: [0066] – “each model may be for a particular aircraft that is being assembled for a customer”) in a virtual area within the virtual factory environment corresponding to an actual area where the assembly process currently in progress is being performed (Senesac: [0126-0127] – “ With reference to FIG. 7, an illustration of a graphical user interface for identifying a model of an aircraft for viewing is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, graphical user interface 700 displays buildings 702 including building 704, building 706, and building 708. [0127] In this particular example, each building in buildings 702 in graphical user interface 700 represents a location where manufacturing of aircraft occurs. Each building may correspond to a database of aircraft that are manufactured within the building.”; Examiner notes Fig. 7 Shows different sections of factory where assembly is said to take place); and
adding a graphical effect that depicts the assembly process currently in progress to the metaverse environment (Senesac: [0128-0129] – “Turning now to FIG. 8, an illustration of a graphical user interface of aircraft positions in a building is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, aircraft positions 800 are displayed in graphical user interface 802. These positions correspond to tasks that may be performed at different stages of the assembly of an aircraft… [0129] In other words, the aircraft assembly progresses from position to position with different parts being added to the aircraft at the different positions in aircraft positions 800.”).
Claims 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senesac in view JP074 as applied above, further in view of Wiedmeyer et. al (US20190251622A1).
In regards to claim 6, Senesac/ JP074 teaches the machine of claim 1. However, Senesac/ JP074 does not teach: wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to build the metaverse environment to further include at least one item for providing promotional information. However, Wiedmeyer teaches wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to build the metaverse environment to further include at least one item for providing promotional information (Wiedmeyer: [0070] – “While any retail store component may be simulated, most assets available to the VR platform may fall into three asset types: layout elements; products (i.e., merchandise sold in the retail store); and marketing elements such as wall hangings, signage, and catalogs.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Senesac/ JP074 and Wiedmeyer because Senesac/ JP074 disclose a virtual environment and Wiedmeyer further establishes a “Metaverse” virtual reality environment and a “Metaverse” environment is well known in the art. Additionally it would have been obvious to include at least one item for providing promotional information as advertisement is well known in the art and this would provide savings compared to a physical representation as shown in [0004] of the specification of Wiedmeyer.
In regards to claim 9, Senesac/JP074 teaches the machine of claim 1. However, Senesac /JP074 does not teach:
wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to build the metaverse environment to include an avatar of the customer, and to implement the avatar to perform certain activities within the metaverse environment through interaction with the terminal
However. Wiedmeyer teaches:
wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to build the metaverse environment to include an avatar of the customer (Wiedmeyer: [0092] – “the VR platform may include or interface with a body scanning device that captures the physical characteristics of the user in real life and generates a model of the user's avatar that closely resembles the user himself”), and to implement the avatar to perform certain activities within the metaverse environment through interaction with the terminal (Wiedmeyer: [0095] – “ the user may have to walk or perform other locomotive movements in real life, which are translated (e.g., via position sensors on the VR device) into movements of the avatar in the simulation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Senesac/ JP074 and Wiedmeyer for the reasons shown above with respect to claim 6.
Claims 7-8, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senesac and JP074 as applied above, in further view of Bienias (US20110137758A1) hereinafter referred to as Bienias.
In regards to claim 7, Senesac/JP074 teach the machine of claim 1. However, Senesac does not teach:
wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to build the metaverse environment to include a virtual market for selling customization components or modules, and to transmit information about purchased customization components or modules to the production management system such that the customization components or modules purchased by the customer in the virtual market are actually mounted in the vehicle
However, Bienias teaches:
wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to build the metaverse environment to include a virtual market for selling customization components or modules (Bienias: [0034] – “It should be noted that all aspects of the vehicle configuration will be customizable using the web interface 33 as shown in FIG. 1 including, but not limited to, vehicle color, engine size, interior treatments, rims, tires, grills, hood ornaments, spoilers etc”; Examiner notes Fig. 1 shows virtual environment for customizing vehicle), and to transmit information about purchased customization components or modules to the production management system (Bienias: [0037] – “the user may then either complete the transaction by printing out (block 117) and physically presenting the accumulated documentation to the dealer, which documentation will include information regarding the vehicle make and model, the components and relevant part numbers selected by the user, and the financing documentation as shown in block 116, or the user can proceed with the fully online option as shown in block 118, if available”) such that the customization components or modules purchased by the customer in the virtual market are actually mounted in the vehicle (Bienias: [0038] – “Once the user has completed the customization, financing, and price negotiation, if any, a final date for delivery of the vehicle 10 is established, and the user then acquires the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the inventions of Bienias with the teachings of Senesac/ JP074 because Senesac/JP074 discloses a system where there is a metaverse environment used to represent the creation of a purchased vehicle. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included a virtual market for selling customization components or modules, and to transmit information about purchased customization components or modules to the production management system such that the customization components or modules purchased by the customer in the virtual market are actually mounted in the vehicle as taught by Bienias because “up-selling” a customer is well known in the art and use of it in the system would provide the user a comprehensive system for performing virtual customized vehicle design including component allocation and pricing; as well as financing, purchase, negotiation, and final acquisition as shown in [0011] of Bienias.
In regards to claim 8, Senesac/JP 074 teaches the machine of claim 1. However, Senesac does not teach:
wherein, in response to a non-purchasing customer who has not purchased a vehicle attempting to access the metaverse environment, the metaverse service operation system is further configured to restrict access of the non-purchasing customer to some functions provided by the metaverse environment.
However, Bienias teaches:
wherein, in response to a non-purchasing customer who has not purchased a vehicle attempting to access the metaverse environment, the metaverse service operation system is further configured to restrict access of the non-purchasing customer to some functions provided by the metaverse environment. (Bienias: [0037] – “ the user may then either complete the transaction by printing out (block 117) and physically presenting the accumulated documentation to the dealer… or the user can proceed with the fully online option as shown in block 118, if available… If the user proceeds with the online option of step 118 by clicking on next icon 61, then an additional interface may be presented as shown in FIG. 6 at the option of the dealer selected, which interface will allow for some degree of negotiation of the price”; Examiner notes that the negotiation interface would not be available to those who have not purchased a vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Senesac/JP074 and Bienias as shown with regards to claim 7 above.
In regards to claim 14, Senesac/JP074 teach as disclosed above Senesac does not teach:
performing an authentication procedure for the customer based on information received from the terminal; and blocking access of the terminal to the metaverse environment in response to authentication of the customer failing
However, Bienias teaches:
performing an authentication procedure for the customer based on information received from the terminal; and blocking access of the terminal to the metaverse environment in response to authentication of the customer failing (Bienias: [0032] – “The computing devices 12 are operated by users authorized by the e.g., automobile manufacturer or dealer, to access system 14, the level of access granted being variable. Typically, a user will not have full access to the system 14 until registering with the system and providing at least some identification”).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Senesac JP074 and Bienias as shown with regards to claim 7 above.
In regards to claim 15, Senesac/JP 074 teaches the process of claim 12. However, Senesac does not teach:
restricting access of a non-purchasing customer who has not purchased a vehicle to some functions provided by the metaverse environment in response to the non-purchasing customer attempting to access the metaverse environment
However, Bienias teaches:
restricting access of a non-purchasing customer who has not purchased a vehicle to some functions provided by the metaverse environment in response to the non-purchasing customer attempting to access the metaverse environment (Bienias: [0037] – “ the user may then either complete the transaction by printing out (block 117) and physically presenting the accumulated documentation to the dealer… or the user can proceed with the fully online option as shown in block 118, if available… If the user proceeds with the online option of step 118 by clicking on next icon 61, then an additional interface may be presented as shown in FIG. 6 at the option of the dealer selected, which interface will allow for some degree of negotiation of the price”; Examiner notes that the negotiation interface would not be available to those who have not purchased a vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Senesac/JP 074 and Bienias as shown with regards to claim 7 above.
In regards to claims 17-18, all the limitations in claims 17-18 are identical to the limitations of claims 14 and 15 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senesac and JP 074 as applied above, in further view of Chang et. al (US20160288708A1) hereinafter referred to as Chang.
In regards to claim 10, Senesac/JP 074 teach the machine of claim 1. Senesac further discloses wherein the metaverse service operation system is further configured to add a character representing the vehicle within the metaverse environment (Senesac: [0056] – “object visualization system 134 may provide a visualization of object 102 to operators 122 [0085] – “object visualizer 204 is configured to identify a model of object 102, such as aircraft 104”), to set a character name for the character through interaction with the terminal (Senesac: [0082] – “ Model database 215 is a database of models for objects… Of course, any type of model that may provide information about the three-dimensional geometries of objects may be used. Additionally, these models may also include other information about materials, instruction assemblies, or other suitable types of information”.
However, Senesac fails to teach:
and to give a conversation function with the terminal to the character
Chang however, does teach:
and to give a conversation function (Chang: [0024] – “The avatar is designed to be conversational, and speaks in a gender and age neutral voice”) with the terminal (Chang: [0005] – “The HMI includes one or more input devices configured to receive data, including characteristics of a driver of the vehicle. The HMI also includes an HMI controller and one or more output devices configured to deliver an output the driver. [0024] “the HMI system 100 can generate an avatar configured to assist and entertain the user and engage with the user to provide a unique driving experience”) to the character (Chang: [0030] – “In some examples, the avatar may be a simple abstract shape. An example of a generally circular but flexible avatar is shown in FIGS. 2-4. However, other shapes an avatar types are possible.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Senesac, JP074 and Chang because Senesac teaches a representation of the object in the virtual environment and Chang simply teaches the object having a conversational ability. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include and to give conversation function with the terminal to the character as this would provide comfort, understanding, and entertainment to the user as cited in [0024] of the specification of Chang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 9/26/2025, with respect to 35 USC 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of 6/3/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Section 101 Rejections
With regards to applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 101 (see REM 10-12), the claims do not recite an abstract idea, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument:
Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (emphasis added). Stated differently, "A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process". MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)
Thus, because the Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the Specification, as quoted above. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 12, and 16 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 12, and 16 specifying that the abstract idea of tracking the progress of a vehicle being assembled is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Since applicant has not specifically pointed out the errors in the rejection of the claims as falling within the abstract idea grouping of Certain methods of organizing human activity, the rejection is made final.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pottel (The manufacturer 2023) discloses automotive manufacturers leverage real-time location systems and RFID applications.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691