DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-one:
Exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
An environment reproduction method implemented by a reproduction device and comprising, during reproduction of a first environment: detecting reproduction parameters of the first environment relating to an avatar, triggered by a movement command to move the avatar to a second environment, the detected reproduction parameters being able to be used during a first phase of reproducing the second environment and during the first phase of reproducing the second environment, inserting a preview object containing the second environment into the first environment.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity managing personal behavior or relationships including following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving displaying a virtual environment, processing user input, moving the user avatar to various scenes of the virtual environment and displaying a virtual object in the virtual environment according to user input.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-two
Since claim 1 recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a reproduction device, it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, game consoles, smart phones, tablet computing devices and the like. Consequently, the claims fail to identify a practical application of the identified judicial exception.
(Step 2B)
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a reproduction device, amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0138] – [0140]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered, as a whole, amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e., software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e., controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The Applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0138] – [0140]). In particular the Applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the Applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the Applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-13 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of server computing device and fan computing devices, as respectively presented, that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by non patent literature “Non-Euclidean-Worlds Engine” (YouTube video, dated 8/14/18, “NEWE” hereafter).
Note, as a curtesy, examiner has provided qr codes for the YouTube urls. This has been done because optical character recognition usually transposes letters to numerals and vice versa and since YouTube urls have both letters and numerals this results in a non-functioning url. Similarly, many URLs contain special characters and spacing that is hard to capture from a paper document. Using a smartphone on the qr codes should provide an accurate url. The qr codes were generated by pasting the urls into a form found at https://www.qr-code-generator.com.
Non-Euclidean Worlds Engine
PNG
media_image1.png
1429
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, NEWE discloses an environment reproduction method implemented by a reproduction device and comprising, during reproduction of a first environment: detecting reproduction parameters of the first environment relating to an avatar, triggered by a movement command to move the avatar to a second environment (a view point is moved in the world showing a nearby environment, 00:12 – 00:44; current position and orientation of the view point are interpreted to be the parameters relating to the avatar),
the detected reproduction parameters being able to be used during a first phase of reproducing the second environment and during the first phase of reproducing the second environment, inserting a preview object containing the second environment into the first environment (parameters used to render the texture placed on the plane of the tunnel entrance that appears as the view into the tunnel and beyond; 03:28-03:48).
Regarding claim 2, NEWE discloses the reproduction method comprises: reproducing the first environment, and after receiving the movement command to move the avatar placed in the first environment to the second environment, reproducing the second environment, the reproduction of the second environment comprising the first phase and a second phase (first phase is when the preview texture simulates viewing through the tunnel before entering the tunnel, the second phase is when looking out of the tunnel while in the tunnel; 03:28-03:42).
Regarding claim 3, NEWE discloses the reproduction method comprises generating a transition providing an intermediate environment between the first environment and the second environment to be reproduced during the first phase of reproducing the second environment (the interior of the tunnel rendered while the viewport is in the tunnel is interpreted to be an immediate environment; 03:39 – 03:41).
Regarding claim 4, NEWE discloses the transition comprises a morphing (while moving through tunnel the scale of the viewpoint is shrunk or enlarged; 02:40 – 03:18).
Regarding claim 5, NEWE discloses the transition comprises the preview, and the preview inserts the preview object containing the second environment into the first environment (parameters used to render the texture placed on the plane of the tunnel entrance that appears as the view into the tunnel and beyond; 03:28-03:48).
Regarding claim 6, NEWE discloses a dimension of the preview object changes during the first phase starting from a default dimension value (the preview object takes up a larger or smaller portion of the view frustum when viewing the two different objects simultaneously depending on the viewports shifting to the left and right of the pillar; 02:04 – 2:10).
Regarding claim 7, NEWE discloses the change of the preview object results from a modification of the preview object on the basis of at least one interaction with the preview object (the preview object takes up a larger or smaller portion of the view frustum when viewing the two different objects simultaneously depending on the viewports shifting to the left and right of the pillar; 02:04 – 2:10).
Regarding claim 8, NEWE discloses the preview object is one of the following preview objects: a plane, a curved plane, a volume (the rendered preview texture is placed on the plane of the tunnel entrance that appears as the view into the tunnel and beyond; 03:28-03:48).
Regarding claim 9, NEWE discloses the transition comprises a preview of the preview object during a first period of the first phase of reproducing the second environment, and a morphing during a second period of the first phase of reproducing the second environment, the first phase of reproducing the second environment being formed successively of the first period and of the second period (first phase is when the preview texture simulates viewing through the tunnel before entering the tunnel, the second phase is when looking out of the tunnel while in the tunnel and the morphing the changing scale of the viewport; 02:40 – 03:18).
Regarding claim 11, NEWE discloses the second environment contained in the preview object is a reproduction of the entire second environment or of the entire second environment that will be visible to the avatar when it the avatar arrives in the second environment at an end of the first phase of reproducing the second environment (the rendered texture placed on the plane of the tunnel entrance that appears as the view into the tunnel and beyond; 03:28-03:48).
Claim 12 is directed to an article of manufacture containing code that implements the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 13 is directed to a device that implements the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715