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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 2/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 & 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.___(2014).
Claims 1-12 are directed to a method of processing data and claims 14-21 are directed to a computer program to implement the process. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart thus directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Addressing the claims under Step 2A, the claims are held to be directed to concepts similar to those found to be abstract, either as outlined in the 2014 lEG/July 2015 Update to Subject matter eligibility, or, as compared to certain decisions rendered by the courts. The claims describe the steps of merging virtual objects in virtual environment. The addition of the limitations that narrow the idea merely aide in the description of the abstract idea and therefore do not render the claims any less abstract.
The concept of identifying and merging virtual objects in virtual environment further represents ‘an idea itself’ (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)) inasmuch as it is related to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data. Several precedential cases have found concepts relating to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data to be mere ideas in themselves. One example includes selecting/identifying displayed data, manipulating the data through encoding and decoding processes, and generating new outputs/displays (Recognicorp, LLC, v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01873-RAJ (2017)). The courts have addressed other computerized processes for of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data including data collecting and comparing known information (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC 659 F.3d 1057(Fed. Cir. 2011)), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))] extracting, organizing, storing and transmitting data (Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n. 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc. 654 F.3d 1366, 99 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)).
Furthermore, claims 2-10 & 17-20 are rejected as they are directed to mathematical algorithms (i.e. averaging, aggregating, adjusting, and calculating object visibility). In particular, the courts have found mathematical algorithms to be abstract ideas (i.e. a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another in Benson, or an algorithm for calculation parameters indication an abnormal condition in Grams). The courts have found that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2015) citing e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v.Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRFTech., Inc. v. Int'ITrade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319,1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90 (1978); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
Therefore, while it is understood that the claims in the current application are not verbatim recitations of the guidelines or case law, the detailed analysis provided above shows how the current claim limitations at issue closely parallel the concepts provided by the guidelines and the precedential case law, and are therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claims 1-12 & 14-21 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; MPEP § 2106.05(f). (1) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; MPEP § 2106.05(h); (2) are insignificant extra solution activity; MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements are limited to generic computer components. Claims 1-12 does not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application. Claims 14-21 include additional elements such as generic processor and storage hardware including instructions “A computer device”] and a generic display, as evident by claims 14-15, which includes “obtaining a target visibility set corresponding to a target sub-region of a plurality of sub- regions, wherein a specified virtual scene is divided into the plurality of sub-regions, the specified virtual scene comprises one or more objects, and the target visibility set comprises visibility of at least one object of the one or more objects in the target sub-region; determining, from the plurality of sub-regions, one or more of sub-regions adjacent to the target sub-region as one or more adjacent sub-regions; obtaining a visibility set corresponding to an adjacent sub-region of the one or more adjacent sub-region, the visibility set comprising visibility of at least one object of the one or more objects in the adjacent sub-region; and determining a difference value between the target visibility set and the visibility set, and in response to determining that the difference value satisfies a preset condition, merging the target visibility set and the visibility set to obtain a merged visibility set as a visibility set common to the target sub-region and the adjacent sub-region.” Therefore, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/computer components and is not a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Claims 1-12 & 14-21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the examiner acknowledges the additional limitations (i.e. generic computer components and various forms of software for implementing the abstract idea). Under Step 2B, no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. For example, the computer components generically claimed to enable the management of the game by performing the basic functions of: receiving, processing, and storing data (i.e. instruction to perform an abstract function as demonstrated by the claims above). The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Particularly, In re TLI Communications LLC (Fed Cir, 2016) held that adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible. As such, the recitation of the computer limitations in Claims 1-12 & 14-21 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
These limitations however are used for data gathering and presentation and as such merely represents insignificant pre and post solution activity. Even assuming arguendo that the claims are not insignificant pre and post solution activities or mental activities, each of the functions performed by the machinery are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving and processing data, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (see July 2015 Update: Section IV)).
Additionally, these limitations (i.e. software for implementing abstract idea) are merely generic recitations of computers and networks performing basic functions and the claims amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The limitations taken as a whole amount to nothing more than implementing the concept identifying and transmitting information to a computing device with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of identifying and transmitting auction information to a user.
Ultimately, the claimed machine(s) function solely as an obvious mechanism to achieve the claimed result, failing to impart a meaningful limit on the claim scope [see SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2010)]. The claims at issue here do not rise to overriding the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily performed by the computer, nor do they set forth with any specificity the interactions of the machine itself. Conversely, the claims are only specific in how the computer is used to facilitate the abstract idea itself using routine and conventional operations of the generic machinery, and are silent as to any detail or property that would transform the otherwise generic machinery into a specialized or special purpose machine. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of applicant's method add nothing that is not already present when they are considered individually. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply convey the idea itself facilitated by generic computing components.
Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-12 & 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamarre (US Patent 11,120,606; referred to hereinafter as Lamarre).
Claims 1, 8 & 14-15: Lamarre disclose a method for processing game data (abstract), comprising obtaining a target visibility set corresponding to a target sub-region of a plurality of sub- regions, wherein a specified virtual scene is divided into the plurality of sub-regions, the specified virtual scene comprises one or more objects (col. 3: 4-26), and the target visibility set comprises visibility of at least one object of the one or more objects in the target sub-region (col. 3: 46-65, image is constituted as object), determining, from the plurality of sub-regions, one or more of sub-regions adjacent to the target sub-region as one or more adjacent sub-regions (cols. 5-6: 49-19 regions around the image), obtaining a visibility set corresponding to an adjacent sub-region of the one or more adjacent sub-region the visibility set comprising visibility of at least one object of the one or more objects in the adjacent sub-region (cols. 6-7: 20-8, disclose visibility corresponding to the object), and determining a difference value between the target visibility set and the visibility set (col. 8: 1-22 brightness factor for the set of coordinates for the target image/object), and in response to determining that the difference value satisfies a preset condition, merging the target visibility set and the visibility set to obtain a merged visibility set as a visibility set common to the target sub-region and the adjacent sub-region (col. 9-11: 14-4, include calculation on merging the target object/image to create a merged visibility set).
Claims 2 & 16: Lamarre disclose for each object of the one or more objects in the specified virtual scene, obtaining first visibility of the target visibility set corresponding to the object and second visibility of the visibility set corresponding to the object (col. 9: 1-37 calculation), and obtaining a comparison result by comparing each of the first visibility and the second visibility with specified visibility and determining the difference value based on the comparison result (col. 9: 14-68).
Claims 3 & 17: Lamarre disclose for the each object, in response to determining that the comparison result for the object indicates that the first visibility is greater than the specified visibility and the second visibility is less than the specified visibility or indicates that the first visibility is less than the specified visibility and the second visibility is greater than the specified visibility, determining the object as a target object, to obtain one or more target objects and counting a number of the one or more target objects as the difference value (col. 9: 1-68).
Claims 4 & 18: Lamarre disclose wherein the preset condition comprises being not greater than a preset difference value and merging the target visibility set and the visibility set for merging to obtain the merged visibility set in response to determining that the difference value satisfies the preset condition comprises: in response to determining that the difference value is not greater than the preset difference value, determining the visibility set for merging as a target visibility set for merging; and merging the target visibility set and the target visibility set for merging to obtain the merged visibility set (cols. 9-10, includes multiple conditions for merged visibility).
Claims 5 & 19: Lamarre disclose for each object of the one or more objects, determining a greater one of first visibility of the target visibility set corresponding to the object and second visibility of the target visibility set corresponding to the object, as an updated visibility corresponding to the object, to obtain updated visibilities respectively corresponding to the one or more objects (cols. 9-10) and constructing an updated visibility set based on the updated visibilities to obtain the merged visibility set (col. 11).
Claims 11: Lamarre disclose rendering the one or more objects at least one object in the specified virtual scene based on the merged visibility set (col. 3: 47-65).
Claim 12: Lamarre disclose wherein the plurality of sub-regions are cubic regions of a same shape that do not intersect each other (figures 4-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9-10 & 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yong (20200197797) refers to managing processing resources of an online game include executing the online game for one or more users. Each user is provided access to virtual locations in a gaming world of the online game. A compute is assigned for processing gaming interactivity of the one or more users in the gaming world. A number of users accessing a region within a virtual location are determined. When the number of users exceeds a predefined limit for the compute assigned to the users in the region, the region is divided into a plurality of sub-regions and additional compute is assigned for the region so that the compute and the additional compute can process gaming interactivity for the users in each of the sub-regions defined in the gaming world.
Noge (8,797,354) refers to a storage medium has stored therein an image processing program that causes a computer of an image processing apparatus, which is connected to a real camera for taking an image of a real space and a display device that allows the real space to be viewed on a display area thereof, to operate as real space image obtaining means, specific object detection means, calculation means, setting means, identification means, event providing means, virtual space image generation means, and display control means.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715