DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April, 2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant substantially amended so a new 35 USC 101 explanation is provided below. However now a mathematical concepts abstract idea presents itself. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the present recitations of at least amended independent claim 1 amount to significantly more than merely an abstract idea such as a mental steps or processes, especially in view of the specifically recited technical solution directed toward a particular configuration of the various technical elements set forth by the particular claim recitations. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegations noted above, and Applicant submits that the claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. That is, Applicant submits that the presently recited claims, taken as a whole, recite significant claim elements that cannot be satisfied by mental steps or processes, are not merely abstract ideas as defined by case law, and the claimed subject matter relates to a specific improvement in a computer-related technology including technical structural elements. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims are determined to broadly relate to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, there are sufficient recitations of claim elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea itself. Applicant notes that when determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, "examiners should keep in mind that some inventions pertaining to improvements in computer functionality or to improvements in other technologies are not abstract when appropriately claimed, and thus may be eligible at Step 2A." MPEP 2106.04(a). Specifically, the MPEP instructs Examiners to consider claims as a whole, to consult the specification in determining whether a claimed invention purports to improve computer- functionality or existing technology, and consider the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2016.05(a)… Therefore, Applicant submits that the elements recited by independent claim 1 relate to an improvement at the time of invention to computer functionality itself, and so the claims are directed to subject matter that clearly provides significantly more than any underlying abstract idea”. Examiner cannot find content in the specification directly reciting how computer functionality is improved. Further, as the amendments do not have support in the specification, any recitation of an improvement would not be linked to the claims as currently written.
In order to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, examiner recommends just indicating how the output is used in a practical way. If details are given on how VR content is displayed in an optimized way based on the calculation (presuming there is support for this in the specification) this would overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 20 April, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112f/6th interpretation of claim 1 along with accompanying amendments received on the same date have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112f/6th interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-19, filed 20 April, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-14 along with accompanying amendments received on the same date have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn. However it is noted a new rejection is now made under 35 USC 112 a/1st and the claims as amended cannot be fully compared to the prior art until these rejections are overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 (and by dependency claims 2-12) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 as amended states “calculate a masking degree, which indicates a mask area for a depth map indicating a distance to each object in a first real space where the user is located, based on the obtained angle, and perform integration processing on a second real space in which the user is able to act in the first real space, based on the calculated masking degree”. There is no support for these limitations in the specification for these amendments. The only citation of masking is “Next, the information processing apparatus 100 executes a map integration process using the generated person region occupancy map and environment occupancy map (Step S503) to generate an occupancy map. For example, the information processing apparatus 100 generates an occupancy map that does not include the person region by subtracting (or masking) the person region occupancy map from the environment occupancy map”. That does not encompass “calculate a masking degree, which indicates a mask area for a depth map indicating a distance to each object in a first real space where the user is located, based on the obtained angle, and perform integration processing on a second real space in which the user is able to act in the first real space, based on the calculated masking degree”. Claims 13 and 14 have similar language and have the same lack of support.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites circuitry configured to: obtain an angle between a camera view direction of a user and a gravity direction, the camera view direction being determined based on a head-mounted display (HMD) configured to be worn on a head of the user and to display virtual reality (VR) content, calculate a masking degree, which indicates a mask area for a depth map indicating a distance to each object in a first real space where the user is located, based on the obtained angle, and perform integration processing on a second real space in which the user is able to act in the first real space, based on the calculated masking degree.
The limitation of “obtain an angle between a camera view direction of a user and a gravity direction” is interpreted as insignificant pre-solution activity. The limitations of “calculate a masking degree” and “perform integration processing” are interpreted as pure math and fall within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processing apparatus to perform both the estimating and updating steps. The processing apparatus in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing apparatus performing a generic computer function of estimating) 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing apparatus to perform both the estimating and updating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions 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.
In order to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, examiner recommends just indicating how the output is used in a practical way. If details are given on how VR content is displayed in an optimized way based on the calculation (presuming there is support for this in the specification) or some similar idea, this would overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can “assign” a value by just saying a pixel seems more or less reliable. The further amendments are almost enough to make the claim statutory as this specifies updating environment information but that could still be an abstract idea without doing anything with the environment information. Examiner recommends indicating what is done with the information.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can make a very coarse “occupancy map” to show a person and no person area.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can say measurements they are taking that are close to them will be more accurate than measurements further away.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can look at readings from different devices to determine where a person is.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can tell if a person is sitting or standing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can assume a basic person shape has a basic skeleton shape as humans all have a skeleton.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can read data from a hand held device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can make a judgement based on a small area or a whole room or a building.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can “assign” a value of unknown if they can’t tell if an arm is in a region or not.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A person can use information about a plane (the ground they are standing on for instance) to help determine an area with a person.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Wearing an HMD is insignificant post-solution activity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20230050857 A1 (To this end, systems and methods described herein for masking a recognized object during an application of a synthetic element to an original image may involve tracking a 3D position of a particular object (e.g., a recognized object such as a surgical instrument in the surgical procedure example above) by generating a dense, accurate depth map of the instrument's surface based on a 3D model (e.g., a computer-aided design (“CAD”) model, a pre-scanned 3D representation, etc.) of the instrument that is available to the system. For instance, the depth map in this example may be generated by using kinematic data and/or computer vision techniques that allow the system to track the position and orientation of the surgical instrument in space, as well as by using camera calibration data (e.g., intrinsic parameters defined for the endoscope, etc.) to determine how the surgical instrument is depicted in imagery captured by the endoscope based on the instrument's position and orientation in space); US 20190378287 A1 (In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the image processing module 305 may implement a CNN to mask regions beyond a specified depth, where the CNN may be trained to distinguish foreground and background and provide accurate masks to the object recognizer 306. The CNN of the image processing module 305 may also learn more abstract understandings of structure of space, such as expected shapes of objects).
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 MICHELLE M ENTEZARI HAUSMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-5084. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 M-F.
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, Vincent M Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/MICHELLE M ENTEZARI HAUSMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights