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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
2. (Step 1)
The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
3. (Step 2A) Prong-one:
Exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
An environment reproduction method implemented by a reproduction device and comprising: reproducing a first virtual environment through an output interface of the reproduction device; and during reproduction of the first virtual environment: receiving a movement command through an input interface of the reproduction device; detecting, using at least one processor of the reproduction device, reproduction parameters of the first virtual environment relating to an avatar, triggered by a the movement command to move the avatar to a second virtual environment, the detected reproduction parameters being able to be used during a first phase of reproducing the second virtual environment through the output interface, and during the first phase of reproducing the second virtual environment through the output interface, inserting a preview object containing the second virtual environment into the first virtual environment.
4. 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.
5. (Step 2A) Prong-two
6. 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.
7. 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. Examiner suggests that applicant consider affirmatively claiming a virtual reality headset that is recited in the specification at least at [0144].
8. (Step 2B)
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. “[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.
13. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
On pages 7 & 8, Applicant argues the amended claims incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application be reciting output interface, input interface and processor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitations input interface, output interface, processor amount 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 as detailed above.
On pages 8 & 9, Applicant argues the amended claims overcome the prior art of record because NEWE fails to disclose the avatar's settings in the first area is not triggered by a command to move the avatar from the first environment to the second environment. Examiner agrees. The rejections based on NEWE have been withdrawn.
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 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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
Prosecution Insights