DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 09/15/2026.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 Have been amended.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 have been cancelled.
5. Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-17 are currently pending and are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The Applicant is respectfully reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8 Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a method, which is a statutory class, the method for determining advertisement viewability in a virtual environment, the method, comprising:
receiving, using a hardware processor, a content identifier for an advertising object in a virtual environment, wherein the advertising object contains an advertising image that is wrapped around a curved surface;
in response to receiving the content identifier for the advertising object in the virtual environment, determining, using the hardware processor, that an active user is navigating through the virtual environment within a particular vicinity to the advertising object associated with the content identifier and determining a viewport and a view frustum for [[a]] the active user in the virtual environment;
determining, using the hardware processor, a set of viewability metrics comprising (i) a location of a 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 relative alignment between the advertising image and the viewport, wherein the relative alignment comprises an angle between a normal of the advertising object in a region where the advertising image is located and a direction vector between the origin of the viewport and a center of the advertising object; (iii) a relative scale of the advertising object, wherein the relative scale comprises a relative distance combined with a field of view of the view frustum, wherein the relative distance comprises a distance between the origin of the viewport and the center of the advertising object; and (iv) an amount of the advertising image that is visible to the active user, comprising: 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 in response to producing the plurality of rays that originate at the center of the viewport and that are oriented towards the advertising object; 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;
in response to determining the set of viewability metrics, associating, using the hardware processor, the target advertisement with a viewability rating; and
monitoring, using the hardware processor, viewability of the advertising object containing the advertising image that is wrapped around the curved surface based on the viewability rating while active users are within a predefined region of the advertising object.
The steps of
receiving, using a hardware processor, a content identifier for an advertising object in a virtual environment, wherein the advertising object contains an advertising image that is wrapped around a curved surface;
in response to receiving the content identifier for the advertising object in the virtual environment, determining, using the hardware processor, that an active user is navigating through the virtual environment within a particular vicinity to the advertising object associated with the content identifier and determining a viewport and a view frustum for [[a]] the active user in the virtual environment;
determining, using the hardware processor, a set of viewability metrics comprising (i) a location of a 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 relative alignment between the advertising image and the viewport, wherein the relative alignment comprises an angle between a normal of the advertising object in a region where the advertising image is located and a direction vector between the origin of the viewport and a center of the advertising object; (iii) a relative scale of the advertising object, wherein the relative scale comprises a relative distance combined with a field of view of the view frustum, wherein the relative distance comprises a distance between the origin of the viewport and the center of the advertising object; and (iv) an amount of the advertising image that is visible to the active user, comprising: 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 in response to producing the plurality of rays that originate at the center of the viewport and that are oriented towards the advertising object; 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;
in response to determining the set of viewability metrics, associating, using the hardware processor, the target advertisement with a viewability rating; and
monitoring, using the hardware processor, viewability of the advertising object containing the advertising image that is wrapped around the curved surface based on the viewability rating while active users are within a predefined region of the advertising object,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for determining advertisement viewability in a virtual environment. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to providing data associated with the person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processors and a memory. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of receiving content identifier, determining that an active user is navigating through the virtual environment and determining a viewport and a view frustrum, determining a set of viewability metrics, associating the target advertisement with a viewability rating and monitoring viewability of the advertisement object) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processors and a memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a processors and a memory, performing commercial interactions including: receiving content identifier, determining that an active user is navigating through the virtual environment and determining a viewport and a view frustrum, determining a set of viewability metrics, associating the target advertisement with a viewability rating and monitoring viewability of the advertisement object, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, claims 1, 7 and 13 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 2, 8 and 14, these claims recite “wherein the relative alignment further comprises a relative rotation between the viewport and the center of the advertising object.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1, 7 and 13. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 3, 9 and 15, these claims recite “wherein the boundary of the view frustum is a plurality of planes.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1, 7 and13. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 4, 10 and 16, these claims recite “wherein the viewability rating is determined based on a combination of the set of viewability metrics.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1, 7 and13. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 5, 11 and 17, these claims recite “wherein the combination further comprises weighting each metric in the set of viewability metrics with a non-zero weight.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 4, 10 and 16. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-17 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, filed on 09/15/2025, with the amendment filed, the objection to the Abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the Abstract has been withdrawn.
10. Applicant's arguments filed on 09/15/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11. Applicant argued that “…However, even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea (which applicant does not concede), independent claim 1 further recites: "receiving, using a hardware processor, a content identifier for an advertising object in a virtual environment, wherein the advertising object contains an advertising image that is wrapped around a curved surface," in response to receiving the content identifier for the advertising object in the virtual environment, determining, using the hardware processor, that an active user is navigating through the virtual environment within a particular vicinity to the advertising object associated with the content identifier and determining a viewport and a view frustum for the active user in the virtual environment," "determining, using the hardware processor, a set of viewability metrics comprising (i) a location of a 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 relative alignment between the advertising image and the viewport, wherein the relative alignment comprises an angle between a normal of the advertising object in a region where the advertising image is located and a direction vector between the origin of the viewport and a center of the advertising object; (iii) a relative scale of the advertising object, wherein the relative scale comprises a relative distance combined with a field of view of the view frustum, wherein the relative distance comprises a distance between the origin of the viewport and the center of the advertising object; and (iv) an amount of the advertising image that is visible to the active user, comprising: 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 in response to producing the plurality of rays that originate at the center of the viewport and that are oriented towards the advertising object; 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 "monitoring viewability of the advertising object containing the advertising image that is wrapped around the curved surface based on the viewability rating while active users are within a predefined region of the advertising object…” Remarks pages 8-11
12. Examiner notes that the limitations receiving is mere data gathering. The limitations determining and monitoring are data analysis and falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the hardware processor is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea without improving computers. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
13. The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103(a): The Examiner notes the following references:
14. Zalewski (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0231183) discloses the advertising database 140 is a repository for advertising content such as the aforementioned video and audio content. Such content may be stored in digital or analog form. While advertising images are the most prevalent type of advertising content, advertising content may further comprise element types such as programs, objects, state data, control data, textures, bitmap images, compressed images, sequencing data, authentication data, public key and private key (see at least paragraphs 0026 and 0071).
15. LaMontagne et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0279946) discloses determine a metric of viewability of an object of interest (virtual/digital asset) in an electronically generated multidimensional digital environment displayed on graphical user interface by rendering a viewport of the multidimensional digital environment displayed on the graphical user interface, where the viewport includes the object of interest, and where the object of interest includes a multidimensional digital object, and where the object of interest is rendered with a first set of colors (see at least paragraphs 0005-0007).
16. Kokins et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0281918) discloses 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) (see at least paragraph 0056).
17. Moore et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0321402) discloses the operation of the rendering pipeline 1900 in some embodiments will now be described. Based on user input to view a particular map region at a particular zoom level, the virtual camera 1930 specifies a location and orientation from which to view the map region, and sends this viewing frustrum, or volume, to the controller 1975. The controller 1975 instantiates one or more tile providers (see at least paragraph 0218).
18. Badichi (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0205704) discloses a system for calculating viewability scores of objects displayed within a viewport, the system comprising a processing resource configured to perform the following for at least one object of the objects: determine a first value indicative of a relative portion of the object from the viewport; and calculate a viewability score of the object, wherein the viewability score is calculated based on the first value (see at least the Abstract).
19. The prior art mentioned above failed to teach or suggest the combination of the elements of (i) a location of a 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 relative alignment between the advertising image and the viewport, wherein the relative alignment comprises an angle between a normal of the advertising object in a region where the advertising image is located and a direction vector between the origin of the viewport and a center of the advertising object, (iii) a relative scale of the advertising object, wherein the relative scale comprises a relative distance combined with a field of view of the view frustum, wherein the relative distance comprises a distance between the origin of the viewport and the center of the advertising object; and (iv) an amount of the advertising image that is visible to the user, comprising: 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 combination 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.
20. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 pm.
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, llana Spar can be reached on 571)270-7537. 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 01/13/2026