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
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on November 18, 2025, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC §101 discussion:
Applicant’s amendments do not help overcome the §101 rejection. The added additional elements in the amendments of “artificial reality” (AR) are generic/general purpose known elements showing user interacting with a generic/general purpose computer/computing environment. Applicant does not provide any details or specific as to the AR and just uses it in an “apply-it” fashion and are post-solution/extra-solution activities – no more than applying the judicial exception (the abstract idea) using generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing elements/components/etc., to generic/general purpose computer/computing environment. The core concepts of the independent claims and dependent claims are user/human oriented and are directed to assessments of queries for users includes a plurality of user goals associated with an intention of the user; determining/assessing probabilities (values) associated with action and using user goals. Thae claims determine elements of user interaction (based on user goals and other abstract parameters for decision making which includes plans and comparing to thresholds to generate queries to adjust the actions (based on abstract information). As stated in the previous Office action (and in this Office action), the claims are geared towards obtaining information/data (the information itself being abstract in nature), data analysis and manipulation (data comparisons, data organization, and using mathematical concepts) to determine more information/data (determining performance rating based on gathered data/information), and providing this determined information/data for further analysis and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (e.g. determining various values and using those values to get results, probability/statistics, threshold values and comparisons, etc.,). The limitations of the independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activities (managing behavior and interactions (following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (e.g. determining various values and using those values to get results, probability/statistics, threshold values and comparisons, etc.,).
That is, but for the recitation of, for example, computing system, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), artificial reality, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9); non-transitory, computer-readable storage media embodying software, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), artificial reality, etc., (in independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-18); and system, non-transitory, computer-readable storage media, processors, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), artificial reality, etc., (independent claim 19 and its dependent claim 20) (hereinafter referred to as “additional elements” or “generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/etc.,”) in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activities (managing behavior and interactions (following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (e.g. determining various values and using those values to get results, probability/statistics, threshold values and comparisons, etc.,)). The claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/etc., (see details above) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04(d) and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/etc., terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) using generic computer components. It is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Further, Appellant’s claims are different from those claims that the Courts have found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving “composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent eligible). In McRO1, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques” through the “use [of] limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules were limiting because they defined morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The present situation is not like the one in McRO where computers had been unable to make certain subjective determinations, e.g., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. The Background section of one of the patents at issue in McRO, Rosenfeld (US Patent 6,307,576 B1; issued Oct. 23, 2001), includes a description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303-06. There is no comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record. Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique claimed was “[groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
The claims further utilize a generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/etc., (see details above) without any improvement to the technological environment or functioning of the generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/etc., themselves. See also Enflsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea ... the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”). The claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of § 101.”’ (Alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))).
To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the courts have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. In Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., for example, the CAFC held that claims directed to storing a verification structure in computer memory were directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality because they improved computer security. 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC determined the claims addressed the “vulnerability of license authorization software to hacking” and were thus “directed to a solution to a computer-functionality problem.” Id. at 1349. Likewise, in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., the CAFC held that claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” provided greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent eligible improvement in computer functionality. 879 F.3d 1299, 1304–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, the CAFC held patent eligible claims reciting “a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” because the claimed invention “improv[ed] computers’ functionality as a tool able to instantly access all parts of complex three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.” 906 F.3d 999, 1007–08 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1359–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding patent eligible claims reciting an improved user interface for electronic devices that improved the efficiency of the electronic device, particularly those with small screens”). And in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., the CAFC held patent eligible claims directed to an improved method of network security “using network monitors to detect suspicious network activity…generating reports of that suspicious activity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical monitors.” 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The CAFC concluded that the “focus of the claims was on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities,” namely “providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks.” Id. at 1303–04.
The CAFC has consistently stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool. For example, in Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, the CAFC held that claims to a method of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcasts were directed to an abstract idea. 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The CAFC determined the claims were not a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality because they simply used cellular telephones “as tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea.” Id. at 1262; see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting concrete physical components merely as “a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner”). Likewise, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), the CAFC held that claims reciting a system for providing web pages tailored to an individual user were directed to an abstract idea. 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The CAFC held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality. Id. at 1367, 1370; see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea). And in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, the CAFC held patent ineligible claims directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis.” 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC determined the claims were focused not on a physical-realm improvement to computers as tools but rather an improvement in wholly abstract ideas. Id. at 1168. The CAFC has also held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, the CAFC held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader’s order. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly “assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,” the CAFC held that this purported improvement in user experience did not “improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.” Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims “focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly” did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality). In sum, “software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See, e.g., id. 1336–39; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, this inquiry “often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities…or, in-stead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36).
Against this background, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, under step 2B, the recitations of the core inventive steps amount to little more than reciting that the computer system applies the abstract idea. The independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/etc., (see details above) and software (for example, computing system, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9); non-transitory, computer-readable storage media embodying software, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (in independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-18); and system, non-transitory, computer-readable storage media, processors, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (independent claim 19 and its dependent claim 20)).
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice, at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant's application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, Figs. 14, 18B, ¶¶ 0222-0231 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. As stated in the most recent guidelines provided by the office, “Simply appending well-understood routines and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specifies a high level of generality…” (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). The elements in combination (or alone) do not provide any material drawn to something significantly more than the claimed method of organizing these known activities. The claims require no more than generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/etc., to perform generic computer/computing functions. Applicant is directed to the following references: (1) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Gottschalk v. Benson. Applicant’s independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20) do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. The claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information, unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (at JMOL stage finding inventive concept in modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid display). Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6 (at pleading stage finding sufficient inventive concept in “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user”). The claims do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. See Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016). The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information-based abstract ideas. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above discussion regarding 35 USC §101 in the above “Response to Arguments” section is incorporated in this rejection.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-9 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 10-18 are directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture), and claims 19-20 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20) recite obtaining information/data (the information itself being abstract in nature), data analysis and manipulation (data comparisons, data organization, and using mathematical concepts) to determine more information/data (determining performance rating based on gathered data/information), and providing this determined information/data for further analysis and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (e.g. determining various values and using those values to get results, probability/statistics, threshold values and comparisons, etc.,).
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activities (managing behavior and interactions (following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (e.g. determining various values and using those values to get results, probability/statistics, threshold values and comparisons, etc.,). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as 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 scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, computing system, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9); non-transitory, computer-readable storage media embodying software, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (in independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-18); and system, non-transitory, computer-readable storage media, processors, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (independent claim 19 and its dependent claim 20) in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activities (managing behavior and interactions (following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (e.g. determining various values and using those values to get results, probability/statistics, threshold values and comparisons, etc.,)). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic components which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computing/technical elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20) do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20) recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/ devices, etc., and software (for example, computing system, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9); non-transitory, computer-readable storage media embodying software, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (in independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-18); and system, non-transitory, computer-readable storage media, processors, devices (including artificial reality devices – where the actual technical environment and working are not shown), digital, computers, servers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (specification and claims), graphical display/interface, I/O mediator (generic input/output device), etc., (independent claim 19 and its dependent claim 20)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, Figs. 14, 18B, ¶¶ 0222-0231 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The independent claims (1, 10, 19) and dependent claims (2-9, 11-18, 20) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: (1) Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); (2) (MPEP 2106.05); and (3) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. See details above.
Prior art discussion (not a rejection)
As per the independent claims (1, 10, 19), the closest prior art is Gazeau et al., (US 2023/0252990), Bose et al., (US 2016/0292881), and Chen, Long, et al. "Context-aware mixed reality: A framework for ubiquitous interaction." arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05541 (2018). (Year: 2018) (hereinafter Chen).
Gazeau discloses user providing query to the system and discloses an aspect that is directed towards reducing (e.g., minimizing) user friction. According to at least one embodiment, a home automation system develops a set of skills to improve understanding of various tasks that a user may request. To improve such understanding, the system may perform navigation to learn about areas of an environment (e.g., rooms in a smart home environment) and about smart devices in the environment, to query a smart device to learn about its possible attributes, and/or retrieve information from a knowledge base of the system. The amount of information that is learned and/or retrieved may depend on the complexity of a request, as well as the amount of information provided by the user in the request. According to at least one embodiment, the system ultimately prompts the user to provide clarifying information if attempts to gather the information without engaging the user prove unsuccessful. As such, a level of user friction may be reduced. See paragraphs 0025-0026 of Gazeau.
Bose discusses data mining which include analyzing large sets of motion data from different users to suggest exercises to improve performance based on performance data from other users. For example if one user has less rotation of the hips during a swing versus the average user, then exercises to improve flexibility or strength may be suggested by the system. In a golf course embodiment, golf course planners may determine over a large amount of users on a golf course which holes should be adjusted in length or difficulty to obtain more discrete values for the average number of shots per hole, or for determining the amount of time between golfers, for example at a certain time of day or for golfers of a certain age. In addition, sports and medical applications of data mining include determining morphological changes in user performance over time, for example versus diet or exercise changes to determine what improves performance the most, or for example what times of the day, temperatures, or other conditions produce swing events that result in the furthest drive or lowest score. Use of motion capture data for a particular user or with respect to other users enables healthcare compliance, for example to ensure a person with diabetes moves a certain amount during the day, and morphological analysis to determine how a user's motion or range of motion has changed over time. Games may be played with motion capture data that enables virtual reality play against historical greats or other users. Bose further states that a computer may integrated into a camera, and in particular it may be integrated into the camera from which video data is obtained. In other embodiments, such a computer may be a desktop computer or a server computer, including but not limited to virtual computers running as virtual machines in a data center or in a cloud-based service. In some embodiments, the system may include multiple computers of any of the above types, and these computers may jointly perform the operations described in this specification. As will be obvious to one skilled in the art, such a distributed network of computers can divide tasks in many possible ways and can coordinate their actions to replicate the actions of a single centralized computer if desired. The term computer in this specification is intended to mean any or all of the above types of computers, and to include networks of multiple such computers acting together.
Chen illustrates mixed reality that combines computer vision with information science, and computer graphics as a crosscutting technology. It makes seamless connections between virtual space and the real world, by not only superimposing computer-generated information onto the real world environment, but also making progress on novel user interaction for new experience. Chen shows how deep semantic scene understanding methodology combined with dense 3D scene reconstruction can build high-level context-aware highly interactive MR environment. Recognizing this, Chen implements a material-aware physical interactive MR environment to effectively demonstrate natural and realistic interactions between the real and the virtual objects.
However, neither Gazeau nor Bose nor Chen disclose individual or in combination the specific limitations/concept of “generating a decision engine to determine a user friction value and a plurality of second goal probability values associated with the plurality of user goals using the plurality of first goal probability values and the plurality of probability values associated with the plurality of active digital actions; determining, using the decision engine, the user friction value and the plurality of second goal probability values associated with the plurality of user goals using the plurality of first goal probability values and the plurality of probability values associated with the plurality of active digital actions; determining a plan of digital actions based on the user friction value, the plurality of second goal probability values, and the plurality of user goals….” Additionally, the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant' s Specification. Any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant' s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)).
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the allowed independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625