DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Considering applicant's submission February 20, 2026, the Examiner has maintained and
updated the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
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.
The claims herein are directed to a method and system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1 ,9 and 17
receiving gaze data, the gaze data including point-of- view image data
detecting at least one occurrence that a physical space is visible in the point-of-view image data wherein the physical space is detected based on a shape of the physical space and a geographic location of the user;
identifying at least one time associated with the at least one occurrence in the point of view image data;
in response to determining that the physical space is not included in a database as a space available for content placement, determining a value for the physical space based on the at least one occurrence and the at least one time; and
updating the database to include an indicator that the physical space is available for content placement, the indicator including the value.
The limitations of independent claim 1 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations;) because the claims disclose receiving gaze data, detecting a physical space(e.g. advertising) determining a value for said physical space and providing an indication of the value and the physical space.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of:
using first and second wearable device,
outward-facing camera,
non-transitory computer readable medium,
computer readable storage media,
database
processor.
The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of receiving, detecting, determining, and providing such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. The claims 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 element of a using first and second wearable device, outward-facing camera, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer readable storage media, processor amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, appear to merely further limit the
abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 results in the claims
“reciting” an abstract idea. The claims the claims do not recited additional elements that integrate
the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive
concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claims 1-20, the closest prior art found by the examiner is the prior art of Jeong et al. (US 2010/0333020) which discloses, “[0080] When the time axis exists and is ascertained in 616, the landmark display apparatus 100 may check an event time of the landmark and display on the time axis in 618. However, when the time axis does not exist in the screen as a result of the ascertaining in 616, the landmark display apparatus 100 may display the landmark on the lifelog information in 620. Also, when the landmark is set to be displayed on the lifelog information even though the time axis exists as a result of the ascertaining in 616, the landmark display apparatus 100 may display the landmark on the lifelog information”. However, the Examiner was unable to find prior art for the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 that states, “a geographic location of the first wearable device or the second wearable device; identifying at least one time associated with the at least one occurrence in the point-of- view image data; in response to determining that the physical space is not included in a database as a space available for content placement, determining a value for the physical space based on the at least one occurrence and the at least one time; and providing an indication of the value and the physical space available for content placement..” Thus claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 101 that the has oversimplified the claims, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, in the 101 rejection above the Examiner identified the additional elements and considered the claims individually and as a whole. The claims are directed to the commercial activity of receiving gaze data, detecting a physical space(e.g. advertising) determining a value for said physical space and updating a database to include information about the availability of the physical space for content placement and the value. This falls within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity which involves advertising, marketing, or sales activities. Which is considered an abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)) Furthermore, the claims merely recite the desired results of detecting, identifying, and determining while merely reciting at a high-level generality that a processor performs the recited functions. The additional elements of the claim merely provide processes and stores information used to carry out the abstract idea and does not appear to improve the functioning of the computer, any other technology or technical field. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) The applicant argues the amendment provides an improved database and cites paragraphs [0034, 0035, 0036] as the details of a technical problem with prior art database, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the cited paragraphs discloses discussions about viewership data, examples of valuation techniques, limitations of valuation and marketing techniques, and the analysis of point of view videos. None of the cited paragraphs discloses a technical problem regarding databases or any of the additional elements in the 101 rejection. Nor do the cited paragraphs [0035, 0036, and 0121] disclose the unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art regarding databases. Furthermore, (as discussed during the interview June 22, 2026) the assertion to the database merely adds updated data and does not improve the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with a specific data structure recited in the claims. MPEP 2106.05(a) - computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691
While the applicant’s database doesn’t have to be identical to Enfish. Enfish teaches that merely updating a database is insufficient to show an indication of integration of a practical application.
The applicant argues that the claims are analogous to the USPTO example 40, as discussed during the interview, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, in example 40 the claim system modified/improved how network monitoring itself operated. Whereas the applicant’s claims do not dynamically modify how its cameras, wearable devices, processors or databases operate in response to a specific technological condition. Therefore, the claims are not analogous to the technological network monitoring improvement of example 40. The applicant’s claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, any other technology or technical field. The applicant further argues the 101 rejection that the claims cannot be performed by human mental processes, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the Examiner has not rejected the claims based on a mental process. Thus, this argument is moot.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant’s claims do not appear to have limitations that are indicative of integration of a practical application, thus the 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights