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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 08/25/2025 for the application No. 18/530,828, Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-21 have been rejected as follow,
.
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- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-21 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The claims has been amended and Examiner’s analysis is presented below in all the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of
“identifying, …. a viewport and a view frustum … determining, … a set of viewability metrics, the set comprising: (i) a location of the center of the advertising object relative to a boundary of the view frustum, wherein the location is within the boundary of the view frustum; (ii) a display size of the advertising image based on a first count of pixels that are viewable in the viewport and a second count of pixels that comprise the advertising image; and (iii) an object that is obstructing the advertising image in the viewport of the active user, wherein determining that the object is obstructing the advertising image comprises: producing a plurality of rays that originate at a center of the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object, determining a quantity of rays from the plurality of rays that intersect at least one point on the advertising image, and determining a ratio of the quantity of rays that intersect at least one point on the advertising image and a total quantity of rays in the plurality of rays; and in response to determining the set of viewability metrics, associating… the target advertisement with a viewability rating”
The “identifying, determining and associating” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for determining viewability of three-dimensions digital advertisement. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as,
“receiving, …, a content identifier for an advertising object in a virtual environment, wherein the advertising object contains an advertising image;”
“in response to receiving the content identifier for the advertising object in the
virtual environment in which the advertising object contains the advertising image…”,
“in response to identifying the viewport and the view frustum for the active user in
the virtual environment,..”, These are limitations toward accessing, responding or receiving data (gathering data).
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments; using the hardware processor, an active user in the virtual environment; rays that originate at the center of
the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object”. All these elements are recited in a very generic way.
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments; using the hardware processor, an active user in the virtual environment; rays that originate at the center of
the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware, data and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments; using the hardware processor, an active user in the virtual environment; rays that originate at the center of
the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object” , were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
receiving, …, a content identifier for an advertising object in a virtual environment, wherein the advertising object contains an advertising image;”
“in response to receiving the content identifier for the advertising object in the
virtual environment in which the advertising object contains the advertising image…”,
“in response to identifying the viewport and the view frustum for the active user in
the virtual environment,..”. These are limitations toward accessing or responding receiving data (gathering data). Accessing data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments; using the hardware processor, an active user in the virtual environment; rays that originate at the center of
the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object” were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments; using the hardware processor, an active user in the virtual environment; rays that originate at the center of the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object” limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a non-transitory computer- readable medium.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21, the claims recite elements such as
“wherein the viewability rating is determined based on a combination of the set of viewability metrics. wherein the combination further comprises weighting each metric in the set of viewability metrics with a non-zero weight”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19 and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub No. 20230281918 (KOKINS) in view of US PG. Pub No. 20140063061 (Reitan) and in view of US PG. Pub No. 20220392150 (ANON).
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, KOKINS discloses a method for determining viewability of three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments
(“[0001] The present disclosure relates to determining an extent to which an object in a computer-generated scene is visible from a perspective of a virtual camera…”, paragraph 1), the method comprising:
a) receiving, using a hardware processor, a content [ identifier] .for an advertising object in a virtual environment, wherein the advertising object contains an advertising image;
(“[0038] The rendered advertisements may be static images or videos and may be dynamically updated as the user plays the video game 118, for example in response to certain events or certain criteria being satisfied….”, paragraph 38);
b) in response to receiving the content [ identifier] for the advertising object in the
virtual environment in which the advertising object contains the advertising image,
identifying, using the hardware processor, a viewport and a view frustum for an active user in the virtual environment;
(“…it is technically straightforward to predict and measure the number of advertising impressions experienced by users. For video games, the situation is different. Because different players will experience a given video game differently depending on actions taken by the players and/or random factors within the video game code, it is not generally possible to predict a priori the extent to which a given advert within a video game will be viewed, and therefore the number of impressions experienced by the player. ..”, paragraph 4.
“…Various factors affect the degree to which an in-game advert is experienced by a player of the video game, including: the duration of time that the advert is on screen; the size of the advert in relation to the total size of the screen or viewport; and the proportion of an advert which is visible within the screen or viewport. The visibility of the advert depends on whether and how much the advert extends outside the viewport, and whether any portion of the advert is occluded by objects appearing in the scene with the advert”, paragraph 5.
“…determine an area of the surface, or an area of the viewport space, …”, paragraph 17.
“[0054] The method 300 proceeds with determining, at 306, which of the points of the set of points generated at 304 are visible from the perspective of the virtual camera. A point may be considered visible if the point lies within the first of view of the virtual camera (e.g. within the viewing frustum in the case of a perspective camera [Examiner interprets as identifying a view frustum]) ….”, paragraph 54 and Fig. 3.
“…The field of view test may involve discarding points which lie outside the viewing frustum of the virtual camera (in the case of a perspective camera). Furthermore, points corresponding to any surface for which predetermined viewability criteria are not satisfied may be discarded. Examples of viewability criteria include more than a predetermined proportion of the surface (such as 30%, 50%, or 70%) lying within the field of view of the virtual camera, the surface having a projected area greater than a predetermined proportion of the viewport area…”, paragraph 55);
c) in response to identifying the viewport and the view frustum for the active user in
the virtual environment, determining, using the hardware processor, a set of viewability metrics
(see “predetermined viewability criteria ”, paragraph 55), the set comprising: (i) a location of the center of the advertising object relative to a [boundary] of the view frustum, wherein the location is within the [boundary] of the view frustum;
(“…Generating the set of points may involve determining world co-ordinates of each point, given a set of world co-ordinates associated with the surface of the object (such as co-ordinates of its vertices) or a matrix representing a transformation from a default surface to the position and orientation of the surface in world space…”, paragraph 52 and Fig. 3.
“[0055] The field of view test may include discarding any point lying outside the field of view of the virtual camera, and then the point occlusion test may be performed for points which remain after the discarding. The field of view test may involve discarding points which lie outside the viewing frustum of the virtual camera (in the case of a perspective camera)….”, paragraph 55.
“… assuming the candidate occluding objects are convex polygons…testing the point against all edge planes of the polygon or alternatively by determining barycentric coordinates for the intersection and using a barycentric coordinate test if the polygon is a triangle…”, paragraph 56);
(ii) a display size of the advertising image based on [first count of pixels] that are viewable in the viewport and a second count of pixels that comprise the advertising image;
(“..Various factors affect the degree to which an in-game advert is experienced by a player of the video game, including: the duration of time that the advert is on screen; the size of the advert in relation to the total size of the screen or viewport; and the proportion [Examiner interprets as amount of pixels that are viewable] of an advert which is visible within the screen or viewport…”,
paragraph 5.
“…number of pixels of display space occupied by the rendered advert [second count of pixels]…”, paragraph 7.
“…The extent to which the object is determined to be visible may be referred to as a viewability estimate, which may refer to a proportion of the object that is visible, or to a proportion of the viewport [Examiner interprets as amount of pixels that are viewable] occupied by visible portions of the object…”, paragraph 48 and Fig. 3. See also paragraph 49)
and (iii) an object that is obstructing the advertising image in the viewport of the active user, wherein determining that the object is obstructing the advertising image
(see “…[0006] A known method of determining whether an in-game advert is occluded by objects in a computer-generated scene is based on raycasting or ray tracing…”, paragraphs 5-6) comprises: producing a plurality of rays that originate at a center of the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object,
(“A known method of determining whether an in-game advert is occluded by objects in a computer-generated scene is based on raycasting or ray tracing, in which algebraic ray equations are determined for rays emanating from a virtual camera in a direction towards a set of points evenly distributed across the advert,…”, paragraph 6),
determining a quantity of rays from the plurality of rays that intersect at least one point on the advertising image,
(…algebraic ray equations are determined for rays emanating from a virtual camera in a direction towards a set of points evenly distributed across the advert, and these equations are then used to determine whether any objects intersect with rays between the virtual camera and the points. Any point for which at least one such intersection exists is determined to be occluded from the perspective of the virtual camera”, paragraphs 6 and “the number of points used for occlusion testing”, paragraph 7),
and determining a ratio of the quantity of rays that intersect at least one point on the advertising image
(“The point occlusion test may be performed for example using raycasting, in which a ray is generated from the virtual camera [Examiner interprets as quantity of rays] through the point on the surface of the object, and a determination is made whether any object in the scene lies on the ray between the virtual camera and the point…”, paragraph 56. The Examiner notes that it is well known by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention that raycasting test involves a specific number of rays for rendering an object. One ray per pixel is common approach. So KOKINS discloses, “…the number of pixels of display space occupied by the rendered advert …”, paragraph 7 ),
and a total quantity of rays in the plurality of rays [that originate at the center of the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object]
(“…the number of pixels of display space occupied by the rendered advert …”, paragraph 7.
[0056] The point occlusion test may be performed for example using raycasting, in which a ray is generated from the virtual camera through the point on the surface of the object, and a determination is made whether any object in the scene lies on the ray between the virtual camera and the point. …”, paragraph 56.
The Examiner notes that it is well known by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention that raycasting test involves a specific number of rays for rendering an object. One ray per pixel is common approach. So KOKINS discloses, “…the number of pixels of display space occupied by the rendered advert …”, paragraph 7. See also, “…determining an extent to which an object of interest is occluded by objects with fine-scale detail…”, paragraph 1 and
“…The visibility of the advert depends on whether and how much the advert extends outside the viewport, and whether any portion of the advert is occluded by objects appearing in the scene with the advert…”, paragraph 5.
“0006] A known method of determining whether an in-game advert is occluded by objects in a computer-generated scene is based on raycasting or ray tracing, in which algebraic ray equations are determined for rays emanating from a virtual camera in a direction towards a set of points evenly distributed across the advert, and these equations are then used to determine whether any objects intersect with rays between the virtual camera and the points. Any point for which at least one such intersection exists is determined to be occluded from the perspective of the virtual camera”, paragraph 6.
“0056] The point occlusion test may be performed for example using raycasting, in which a ray is generated from the virtual camera through the point on the surface of the object, and a determination is made whether any object in the scene lies on the ray between the virtual camera and the point. More specifically, assuming the candidate occluding objects are convex polygons, the point occlusion test may be performed using a two-part ray-polygon test for at least a subset of the polygons in the scene, which first involves a ray-plane test which checks whether the polygon is not coplanar with the ray and is in front of the ray, and if so generates an intersection point between the ray and the plane of the polygon. If the intersection is not further from the camera than the point being tested, a point-in-polygon test is performed to determine whether the intersection point lies within the polygon (this may be performed by testing the point against all edge planes of the polygon or alternatively by determining barycentric coordinates for the intersection and using a barycentric coordinate test if the polygon is a triangle”, paragraph 56. See also paragraphs 55 and 57)
d) and in response to determining the set of viewability metrics, associating, using the hardware processor, the target advertisement with a viewability rating
(“[0055] The field of view test may include discarding any point lying outside the field of view of the virtual camera, and then the point occlusion test may be performed for points which remain after the discarding. The field of view test may involve discarding points which lie outside the viewing frustum of the virtual camera (in the case of a perspective camera). Furthermore, points corresponding to any surface for which predetermined viewability criteria [Examiner interprets as viewability metrics ]are not satisfied may be discarded. Examples of viewability criteria include more than a predetermined proportion of the surface (such as 30%, 50%, or 70%) lying within the field of view of the virtual camera, the surface having a projected area greater than a predetermined proportion of the viewport area (such as 1%, 2%, or 5%), or an angle between the outward-facing normal vector of the surface and an axial direction towards the camera being less than a predetermined angle (such as 45°, 60° or 75°). Points corresponding to surfaces facing away from the user may be automatically discarded in this way”, paragraph 55).
KOKINS does not expressly disclose but Reitan discloses
a content identifier, “[1141] In one embodiment, targeted advertising is utilized. For example, candidate objects may be selected as object 1301. In an embodiment, a processor 1317 may choose a candidate object from a database of objects (e.g., soda, iced tea, potato chips, yogurt, etc.). A candidate object may be selected in part on a plurality of viewer 1312 information including, but not limited to: demographic information, age, race, gender, socio-economic status, previous preferences, previous preferences within interactive device 1310, past purchases, food preference, furniture preference, vehicle preference, whether a user typically selects one object 1301 over another object 1301, etc. … In an embodiment, a company (e.g., Proctor and Gamble.TM.) may place various objects 1301 associated with its products (e.g., toothpaste, detergent, etc.) throughout a piece of content”, paragraph 1141 and Fig. 13A.
The examiner notes that is obvious that the advertising object has an identifier to be selected from a database [content identifier].
boundary of the view frustum, “…[0908] Metadata information can additionally include: frame time, camera position, camera orientation vector, camera frame orientation vector (up indicator), camera frustum (camera lens: zoom/perspective), camera aperture, camera focus, light source positions, light source intensity, light source chrominance, flying mobility boundaries, floating mobility boundaries, hard surface mobility boundaries, …”, paragraph 908.
a first count of pixels, “[0079] FIG. 1F shows an example virtual viewport selecting a respective portion of content in accordance with various embodiments. In various embodiments, rendering component 105 maps the images from selected video media streams of content 110 to a flat, or planar, virtual display surface such as virtual display surfaces 144 and 145 of FIG. 1F. As with FIG. 1E above, boundary 143 represents the limit of the field of view of lens arrays 106A and 106B and virtual viewport 147 controls which portion of the content 110 will be displayed on playback device 104 based upon a user's viewport control. In order to map pixels to a flat virtual surface, embodiments present the pixels as if a user sees images in full depth…”, paragraph 79.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Reitan’s teaching with the teaching of KOKINS. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to
determining a position of an item in a virtual augmented space and provide media advertising displayed on different devices (see Reitan abstract and paragraph 48).
Further, KOKINS does not expressly teaches but ANON teaches
that originate at the center of the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object
ANON that is in the business of manipulate graphical objects having edges and vertices and virtual pivot points (see abstract), teaches functionality, “Generally, the position separate from the at least one … graphical object is based on a threshold number of pixels [rays] between a cursor element within a viewport of the GUI. The position separate from the at least one … graphical object [i.e. advertisement] may be at least a threshold number of pixels [rays] away from a center of the viewport….”, (paragraph 134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ANON’s teaching with the teaching of KOKINS. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to analyze the position of an object to be rendered based upon the location of the object like advertising impressions within a viewport of the GUI in order to offer a reliable advertising campaign (ANON paragraph 133).
As to claim 8, it comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above , therefore it is rejected in the same manner and further the claim comprises
a hardware processor that is configured ( See KOKINS Fig. 1 and associated disclosure).
As to claim 15, it comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above , therefore it is rejected in the same manner and further the claim comprises
A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for determining viewability of three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments,
(“…[0002] The popularity of video games has risen meteorically, and the global video game industry is currently worth more than the music and film industries combined. In the early years of gaming, video game developers and associated entities made money through the sale of video games on physical media (laser discs and cartridges). …”, paragraph 2);
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, KOKINS discloses
wherein the viewability rating is determined based on a combination of the set of viewability metrics
(see” viewability estimate”, paragraph 9, Fig. 3 and associated disclosure paragraph 48 and 58.
“predetermined viewability criteria ”, paragraph 55),
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, KOKINS discloses
wherein the method further comprises determining that the combination of the quantity of rays that intersect at least one point on the advertising image and the total quantity of rays in the plurality of rays is below a threshold value.
(“[0006] A known method of determining whether an in-game advert is occluded by objects in a computer-generated scene is based on raycasting or ray tracing, in which algebraic ray equations are determined for rays emanating from a virtual camera in a direction towards a set of points evenly distributed across the advert, and these equations are then used to determine whether any objects intersect with rays between the virtual camera and the points. Any point for which at least one such intersection exists is determined to be occluded from the perspective of the virtual camera”, paragraph 6.
“[0054] The method 300 proceeds with determining, at 306, which of the points of the set of points generated at 304 are visible from the perspective of the virtual camera. A point may be considered visible if the point lies within the first of view of the virtual camera (e.g. within the viewing frustum in the case of a perspective camera) and is not occluded by any other object in the scene…”, paragraph 54.
KOKINS’ system teaches quantity of rays because his system uses ray casting algorithms to trace rays “[0006] A known method of determining whether an in-game advert is occluded by objects in a computer-generated scene is based on raycasting or ray tracing, in which algebraic ray equations are determined for rays emanating from a virtual camera in a direction towards a set of points evenly distributed across the advert, and these equations are then used to determine whether any objects intersect with rays between the virtual camera and the points. Any point for which at least one such intersection exists is determined to be occluded from the perspective of the virtual camera”, paragraph 6.
“[0056] The point occlusion test may be performed for example using raycasting, in which a ray is generated from the virtual camera through the point on the surface of the object, and a determination is made whether any object in the scene lies on the ray between the virtual camera and the point. More specifically, assuming the candidate occluding objects are convex polygons, the point occlusion test may be performed using a two-part ray-polygon test for at least a subset of the polygons in the scene, which first involves a ray-plane test which checks whether the polygon is not coplanar with the ray and is in front of the ray, and if so generates an intersection point between the ray and the plane of the polygon. If the intersection is not further from the camera than the point being tested, a point-in-polygon test is performed to determine whether the intersection point lies within the polygon (this may be performed by testing the point against all edge planes of the polygon or alternatively by determining barycentric coordinates for the intersection and using a barycentric coordinate test if the polygon is a triangle).
[0057] An alternative to ray tracing uses depth buffer information stored during rendering of the scene by a rasterization-based rendering method. An example of a suitable method for point occlusion testing involves, for each of the generated points lying within a field of view of the virtual camera, determining a respective depth map value from the perspective of the virtual camera, then comparing the respective depth map value for the point with a corresponding one or more of the depth map values stored in the depth buffer during rendering of the scene, to determine whether the point is visible from the perspective of the virtual camera [Examiner interprets as at least one point on the advertising image and the total quantity of rays in the plurality of rays is below a threshold value]. Using this method, the point occlusion test (as well as the field of view test) may be performed at least partially within a GPU, for example via an auxiliary rendering process which produces no visible output on the display”, paragraphs 56 and 57
KOKINS’ system teaches “threshold value”, “…Provided most of the offsets are comparable to or smaller than around half of the average distance between points…”, paragraph 12 and “…the viewability testing can be made robust against sampling errors caused by the finite size of pixels, limited precision computation …”, paragraph 20 and claim 5).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, KOKINS discloses
wherein the method further comprises, in response to determining that the combination is below a threshold value, determining that an unidentified object is located between the user and the advertising image.
(“…the number of points used for occlusion testing may be chosen to be considerably less than the number of pixels of display space [below a threshold value] occupied by the rendered advert (for example, less than 1%...”, paragraph 7.
“[0054] The method 300 proceeds with determining, at 306, which of the points of the set of points generated at 304 are visible from the perspective of the virtual camera. A point may be considered visible if the point lies within the first of view of the virtual camera (e.g. within the viewing frustum in the case of a perspective camera) and is not occluded by any other object in the scene…”, paragraph 54.
KOKINS’ system teaches an occlusion detection method, “[0073] The method 400 proceeds with determining, at 410, which of the points of the set of points generated at 408 are visible from the perspective of the virtual camera, and updating, at 412, a viewability calculation. These steps may correspond substantially to steps 306 and 308 of the method 300 described above with reference to FIG. 3. As explained above, the determining of which points are visible may be performed in two stages, namely a field of view test followed by a point occlusion test. In some examples, the field of view test may be performed before the offsetting of the points such that points lying outside the field of view of the virtual camera are discarded prior to the offsetting”, paragraph 73 and Figs 3 and 4 and associated disclosure.
“[0062] The method 300 may continue iteratively, with positions of at least some of the generated points relative to the surface of the object varying between iterations. The viewability calculation is updated at each iteration and, if necessary, a final division operation can be applied to determine the final viewability estimate, for example after the object ceases to be visible from the perspective of the virtual camera. By using results from multiple frames, with the positions of the points varying between the frames, the viewability testing method can effectively sample the detail of occluding objects to arrive at an accurate viewability estimate …”, paragraph 62 and 63.
“…The distances of the offsets may be limited (either using a hard constraint [Examiner interprets as a threshold value] or by making larger distances statistically unlikely),..”, paragraph 71)
As to claims 7, 14 and 21, KOKINS discloses
wherein the boundary of the view frustum is a plurality of planes.
(“The field of view test may involve discarding points which lie outside the viewing frustum of the virtual camera (in the case of a perspective camera)..”, paragraph 55. And “… testing the point against all edge planes…”, paragraph 56).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub No. 20230281918 (KOKINS) in view of US PG. Pub No. 20140063061 (Reitan) in view of US PG. Pub No. 20220392150 (ANON) and in view of US PG. Pub No 20110137721 (Bansal).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, KOKINS discloses
wherein the combination further comprises weighting each metric in the set of viewability metrics …
9” [0064] Although the positions of the points vary between image frames, the positions of all of the points generated over several iterations may be substantially evenly distributed across the surface of the object. In this way, contributions to the viewability estimate from different regions of the surface are equally weighted when taken over a sufficient number of image frames….”, paragraph 64);
KOKINS does not expressly disclose but Bansal that is in the field of measure effectiveness of advertising campaign (abstract) discloses
metrics with a non-zero weight.
(“[0005] Determining the advertising effectiveness metric may include determining an estimate of the exposure distribution for the advertising campaign, the exposure distribution including one or more non-zero exposure levels experienced during the campaign; determining, based on the model, consumer response measures for the non-zero exposure levels in the estimate of the exposure distribution; determining changes of the determined consumer response measures for the non-zero exposure levels in the estimate of the exposure distribution relative to the consumer response measure for the zero exposure level; and determining an advertising effectiveness metric based on the changes. Determining the estimate may include determining the non-zero exposure levels reflected by the measurement data. Determining an advertising effectiveness metric based on the changes may include determining a proportion of the users in the group at each non-zero exposure level reflected by the measurement data; weighting the changes by the corresponding proportions; and summing the weighted changes. The changes may be percent changes and the proportions may be the percentages of users in the group at each non-zero exposure level”, paragraph 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bansal’s teaching with the teaching of KOKINS. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to metrics with non-zero weight in order to determine exposure levels (see Bansal paragraph 6).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub No. 20230281918 (KOKINS) in view of US PG. Pub No. 20140063061 (Reitan) in view of US PG. Pub No. 20220392150 (ANON) and in view of US PG. Pub No 20220255995 (Berliner).
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, KOKINS discloses
a) receiving, …, ray casting data comprising: (i) the plurality of rays from the origin at the center of the viewport; and (ii) the intersection of each of the plurality of rays with at least one of the advertising image and the unidentified object;
(“see “a computer-generated scene is based on raycasting or ray tracing, paragraphs
6, 16 and “determining barycentric coordinates for the intersection “, paragraph 56).
KOKINS does not expressly disclose but Berliner that is in the field of virtual reality (abstract) discloses,
at a neural network (paragraph 144)
b) identifying, using the neural network, a category and a likelihood that the unidentified object belongs to the category;
(“…[0417] At least one processor may determine (e.g., identify) the object associated with the first wearable extended reality appliance. In some examples, the at least one processor may receive image data that may be captured by image sensor(s) of the first wearable extended reality appliance. The image sensor(s) may be part of or separate from the first wearable extended reality appliance. The at least one processor may use the image data to identify the object (e.g., a physical object). The image sensor(s) may capture the image data of the scenes in front of (e.g., in the field of view of) the image sensor(s). When the object is located in front of (e.g., in the field of view of) the image sensor(s), the captured image data may indicate the object. The at least one processor may use image analysis algorithms to identify the object, and/or to determine the features (e.g., a size, a color scheme, a texture, a location, an orientation, or any other characteristic) of the object. Based on the image data, the at least one processor may generate the first data representing the object. For example, the at least one processor may use one or more captured images to construct a three-dimensional model of the object. In some examples, the construction of the three-dimensional model may include classifying the object into a category based on captured images, and adding, to a template three-dimensional model (e.g., predefined) for the determined category, extracted features of the object (e.g., a size, a color scheme, a texture, a location, an orientation, or any other characteristic)…”, paragraph 417)
c) and associating a record of the category and the likelihood that the unidentified object belongs to the category with the advertising image.
(“…In some examples, the construction of the three-dimensional model may include classifying the object into a category based on captured images, and adding, to a template three-dimensional model (e.g., predefined) for the determined category, extracted features of the object (e.g., a size, a color scheme, a texture, a location, an orientation, or any other characteristic…”, paragraph 417)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Berliner’s teaching with the teaching of KOKINS. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to identify object and associate them to an scene in order to support a reality environment (see Berliner paragraph 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 08/25/2025 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 is maintained because the facially sufficient analysis above supporting the prima facie of unpatentability presented herein.
Applicant argues (pages 11-13)
IV. The Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Independent claim 1, prior to the current amendments, was rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over the proposed combination of Kokins and Reitan.
Applicant's amended independent claim 1 is directed to a method for determining
viewability of three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments that includes,
among other things:…Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 has been amended to more
particular recite the features of "determining, using the hardware processor, a set of viewability
metrics" "in response to identifying the viewport and the view frustum for the active user in the
virtual environment," where the set of viewability metrics includes "(i) a location of the center of
the advertising object relative to a boundary of the view frustum, wherein the location is within
the boundary of the view frustum; (ii) a display size of the advertising image based on a first
count of pixels that are viewable in the viewport and a second count of pixels that comprise the
advertising image; and (iii) an object that is obstructing the advertising image in the viewport of
the active user," and where "determining that the object is obstructing the advertising image
comprises: producing a plurality of rays that originate at a center of the viewport and are oriented
towards the advertising object, determining a quantity of rays from the plurality of rays that
intersect at least one point on the advertising image, and determining a ratio of the quantity of
rays that intersect at least one point on the advertising image and a total quantity of rays in the
plurality of rays that originate at the center of the viewport and are oriented towards the
advertising object."…
In response the Examiner asserts that for clarification purposes, the prior office action of record did not have possession of the currently amended portion(s) of the claim(s) that the Applicant is currently arguing. Action on these newly amended limitations is contained herein.
Also, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal evidence to overcome the prima facie case. Further, the elements of this instant application are old and well known at the time of the invention. The combination set for the rejection produce results that are predictable. The search conducted shows that there is lack a of novelty on the claimed invention therefore there is a loss of a right to a patent. The prior art read on the claims.
Applicant argues (pages 8-10)
III. The Rejection of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to
non-statutory subject matter. (Office Action, page 2.) In particular, the Examiner states that the
claims are directed to the abstract idea of "methods of organizing human activity, advertising,
marketing or sales activity or behaviors" without significantly more. (Id at page 3.)….
It is plainly apparent from the language of the claim that such a method is clearly not
a) mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and
mathematical calculations); b) certain methods of organizing human activity; and c) mental
processes. Therefore, the claims are directed to patentable subject matter.
In response the Examiner agrees that the claimed invention has a readily apparent well-established utility (see MPEP 2107). But, per MPEP 2106 an invention also must have to comply with the Subject Matter Eligibility test under Alice framework (see MPEP 2106). The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea. None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination, provides eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim simply instruct the practitioner to implement an abstract idea with routine, conventional technology. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible (see complete and facially sufficient analysis of the rejection above).
However, even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea (which applicant does not
concede), independent claim 1 further recites: "determining, using the hardware processor, a set
of viewability metrics" "in response to identifying the viewport and the view frustum for the
active user in the virtual environment," where the set of viewability metrics includes "(i) a
location of the center of the advertising object relative to a boundary of the view frustum,
wherein the location is within the boundary of the view frustum; (ii) a display size of the
advertising image based on a first count of pixels that are viewable in the viewport and a second
count of pixels that comprise the advertising image; and (iii) an object that is obstructing the
advertising image in the viewport of the active user," and where "determining that the object is
obstructing the advertising image comprises: producing a plurality of rays that originate at a
center of the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object, determining a quantity of
rays from the plurality of rays that intersect at least one point on the advertising image, and
determining a ratio of the quantity of rays that intersect at least one point on the advertising
image and a total quantity of rays in the plurality of rays that originate at the center of the
viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object." Applicant respectfully submits that
these limitations, in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1, amount to
significantly more than the allegedly abstract idea identified by the Examiner.
In response the Examiner asserts that the instant claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are solely directed to a method for determining viewability of three-dimensions digital advertisement. There are not any other additional elements to conform an eligible inventive concept in this case.
The Examiner clarifies that the term "inventive concept" is often used by the courts to describe additional element(s) that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. The Examiner directs Applicant to see MPEP 2106.05 I. THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT and II. ELIGIBILITY STEP 2B: WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS CONTRIBUTE AN "INVENTIVE CONCEPT".
Additionally, this case is not rejected under 101 only because the invention ability to run on a general purpose computer, but also because the detail facially sufficient analysis provided above, where the Examiner looked both the instant claims and the specification to elaborate the Examiner's facially sufficient analysis. The additional elements in the instant claims, “three-dimensional digital advertisements in virtual environments; using the hardware processor, an active user in the virtual environment; rays that originate at the center of the viewport and are oriented towards the advertising object”, do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea identified above, as the additional elements do not: Improve another technology or technical field; Improve the functioning of a computer itself; Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventiona