Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
1. This communication is in response to the original Application No. 18/606,146 filed on 3/15/2024.
2. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
3. For the purpose of applying prior art, PreGrant Publications will be referred to
using a four digit number within square brackets, e. g. [0001].
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract
idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2016.04(a)(2).
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Consideration’s indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(d).
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field;
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception;
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in MPEP § 2106.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)).
Consideration’s indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in MPEP 2016.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field MPEP 2106.04(d)(1);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine MPEP 2106.04(d)(2);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the consideration’s indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are NOT indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the in MPEP 2016.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g);
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h);
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See MPEP 2106;
Claims 1-21 is/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.
Step 1: Statutory Categories (MPEP § 2106.03):
Representative claim 1 is directed toward a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Representative claim 8 is directed toward an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
Representative claim 15 is directed toward an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity:
The claim, as a whole, recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves mitigating risk, which is an abstract idea, without substantially more.
As to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15:
1. A method for screening users items in virtual environments, the method
comprising:
determining one or more first representative values of one or more first metrics for a first user, wherein the one or more first metrics are associated with one or more content items presented within a virtual environment and wherein the one or more first metrics includes:
angles between orientation vectors of one or more content items and view directions of one or more virtual cameras in the virtual environment, wherein the one or more virtual cameras are controlled by the first user (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
(11) on-screen real estates of the one or more content items based on distances between the one or more content items and the one or more virtual cameras controlled by the first user (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
(111) view duration in which a content item of the one or more content items was at least partially presented for the first user on a rendered screen of the virtual environment during a predetermined amount of time (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
(iv) a comparison between the view duration and a duration in which the one or more virtual cameras were controlled by the first user during the predetermined amount of time (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
in response to determining the one or more first representative values of the one or more first metrics, comparing the one or more first representative values to one or more corresponding reference values, wherein comparing the one or more first representative values to the one or more corresponding reference values comprises determining a fraud score based on the one or more first representative values and the one or more corresponding reference values (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);
in response to determining the fraud score, determining that the fraud score is within a first predetermined range of values (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and
in response to determining that the fraud score is within the first
predetermined range of values, determining that the first user in the virtual
environment is a human user (Which is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Thus, the claim(s) are directed toward mitigating risk, which is an abstract idea, without substantially more.
NOTE: The mere nominal recitation of technology does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.1
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of some of the positively recited steps (e.g., “determining;” “comparing;” “determining;” “determining;”) including interaction with a plurality of devices and additional elements of:
(e.g., (a) “virtual environments;”
(b) “virtual cameras;”
(c) “first user;”).
The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of:
data processing (e.g., “determining,’ “comparing,” “determining,”, “determining,” etc. step(s) as claimed); and
(b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., etc. step(s) as claimed)).
The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are performed (e.g., the non-transitory computer-readable….) Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does NOT impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do NOT integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do NOT provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do NOT include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field.
Applicant’s Specification, as filed on 3/15/2024 does NOT provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0148] For example, user devices 906 can include any one or more user devices suitable
for requesting video content, rendering the requested video content as immersive video content (e.g., as virtual reality content, as three-dimensional content, as 360-degree video content, as 180-degree video content, and/or in any other suitable manner) and/or for performing any other suitable functions. For example, in some embodiments, user devices 706 can include a mobile device, such as a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a wearable computer, a laptop computer, a virtual reality headset, a vehicle (e.g., a car, a boat, an airplane, or any other suitable vehicle) information or entertainment system, and/or any other suitable mobile device and/or any suitable non-mobile device (e.g., a desktop computer, a game console, and/or any other suitable non-mobile device). As another example, in some embodiments, user devices 706 can include a media playback device, such as a television, a projector device, a game console, desktop computer, and/or any other suitable non-mobile device.
Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as:
data processing (e.g., “determining,’ “comparing,” “determining,”, “determining,” etc. step(s) as claimed); and
data receipt/ transmission (e.g., etc. step(s) as claimed));
are well understood, routine and conventional. Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activates previously known in the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do NOT add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The original filed Specification supports this conclusion at Par [0148].
Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Hence, the use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.2 Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
For these reasons, there is NO invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 AND 16-21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 are steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the determining a human in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 are steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe corresponding reference values in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 are steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe determining a fraud score in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 are steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the distance between content items in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 are steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the distance between content items in furtherance of the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim(s) 7, 14 and 21 are steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the distance between content in furtherance of the abstract idea.
In all the dependent claim(s), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This is because the claim(s) do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, the claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claim(s) also are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 15 contains similar language or like deficiencies found in claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 do not add any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Maschmeyer et al., (US 2023/0401802)
A system and method are provided for updating electronic content by selectively replacing virtual 3D objects being displayed in an electronic environment. The method includes in one example, presenting augmented reality (AR) content, the presented AR content showing a set of objects, at least some of the objects of the set of objects being rendered 3D objects; receiving an input identifying one of the objects of the set of objects; and responsive to the input, providing updated AR content, the updated AR content replacing at least one of the objects with a different rendered 3D object, wherein the replaced at least one of the objects is determined based on the identified one of the objects of the set of objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Dante Ravetti whose telephone number is (571) 270-3609. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. John Hayes may be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 270-4609.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from
the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information
for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public
PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system see
http://pair-direct5yspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the private
PAIR system, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 1-(866)
217-9197. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
Representative or access to the automated information system, call 1-(800) 786-
9199 (IN USA or CANADA) or 1 -(571) 272-1000.
/DANTE RAVETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 7/25/2025
1 (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, NO 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106);
2 MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h);
Prosecution Insights