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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on April 8, 2026 for the patent application 18/749,685 filed on June 21, 2024. Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 are amended. Claims 5 and 7 are cancelled. Claims 10-11 are new. Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-11 are pending. The first office action of May 22, 2025; the second office action of August 29, 2025; and the third office action of December 8, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 1-4, 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a VR training performance management system” (i.e. “a machine”), claim 8 is directed to “a VR training performance management method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 9 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “training performance management,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“provide a VR training content;
acquire VR training implementation information associated with the user’s performance of the VR training content, the VR training implementation information comprising:
gaze information indicating an eye-gaze trajectory of the user during the user’s performance of the VR training content,
operation information indicating at least one of controller manipulation and hand- motion, and
a training time associated with the user’s performance of the VR training content;
obtain correct-answer information predefined for the VR training content, the correct-answer information including:
predetermined gaze positions,
a prescribed operation sequence,
a standard training time; and
weighting coefficients for plural evaluation items including attention, accuracy, and speed;
input the VR training implementation information to a machine-learning model and trained in advance to output, for each of the plural evaluation items, an evaluation value indicating a degree of coincidence between the VR training implementation information and the correct-answer information;
calculate a comprehensive evaluation as a weighted sum of the evaluation values using the weighting coefficients;
determine that the VR training implementation information constitutes a best practice when the comprehensive evaluation exceeds a first threshold and the training time is shorter than the standard training time, and, in response, update the correct-answer information with at least a portion of the VR training implementation information
set the evaluation values and the comprehensive evaluation calculated based on the VR training implementation as credential information;
store the credential information in association with user identification information of the user; and
based on receiving, a credential request including the user identification information, extract the credential information associated with the user identification information from the storage, generate credentials for the user based on the extracted credential information, and issue the credentials.”
Per claim 8:
“provide a VR training content;
displaying the VR training content;
tracking eye-movement of a user with respect to the virtual content;
measuring movement of each part of the user's hand with respect to the virtual content;
detecting input control with respect to the virtual content;
acquiring VR training implementation information associated with the user's performance of the VR training content, the VR training implementation information comprising:
gaze information indicating an eye-gaze trajectory of the user during the user's performance of the VR training content,
operation information indicating at least one of controller manipulation and hand-motion measured during the user's performance of the VR training content, and
a training time associated with the user's performance of the VR training content;
obtaining correct-answer information predefined for the VR training content, the correct-answer information including:
predetermined gaze positions,
a prescribed operation sequence,
a standard training time, and
weighting coefficients for plural evaluation items including attention, accuracy,
and speed;
inputting the VR training implementation information in advance to output, for each of the plural
evaluation items, an evaluation value indicating a degree of coincidence between the VR training
implementation information and the correct-answer information
calculating a comprehensive evaluation as a weighted sum of the evaluation values using the weighting coefficients;
determining that the VR training implementation information constitutes a best practice when the comprehensive evaluation exceeds a first threshold and the training time is shorter than the standard training time, and, in response, updating the correct- answer information with at least a portion of the VR training implementation information;
setting the evaluation values and the comprehensive evaluation calculated based on the VR training implementation as credential information;
storing the credential information in association with user information of the user in the storage; and
based on receiving, a credential request including the user identification information, extracting the credential information associated with the user identification information from the storage, generating credentials for the user based on the extracted credential information, and issuing the credentials.”
Per claim 9:
“providing a VR training content;
acquiring VR training implementation information associated with the user's performance of the VR training content, the VR training implementation information comprising:
gaze information indicating an eye-gaze trajectory of the user during the user's performance of the VR training content,
operation information indicating at least one of controller manipulation and hand-motion detected during the user's performance of the VR training content, and
a training time;
obtaining, correct-answer information predefined for the VR training content, the correct-answer information including:
predetermined gaze positions,
a prescribed operation sequence, a standard training time, and
weighting coefficients for plural evaluation items including attention, accuracy, and speed;
inputting the VR training implementation information in advance to output, for each of the plural evaluation items, an evaluation value indicating a degree of coincidence between the VR training implementation information and the correct-answer information;
calculating a comprehensive evaluation as a weighted sum of the evaluation values using the weighting coefficients;
determining that the VR training implementation information constitutes a best practice when the comprehensive evaluation exceeds a first threshold and the training time is shorter than the standard training time, and, in response, updating the correct-answer information with at least a portion of the VR training implementation information;
setting the evaluation values and the comprehensive evaluation calculated based on the VR training implementation as credential information;
storing the credential information in association with user identification information of the user; and
based on receiving, a credential request including the user identification information, extracting the credential information associated with the user identification information, generating credentials for the user based on the extracted credential information, and issuing the credentials.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a plurality of terminal devices,” “a computer,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a storage,” “VR equipment,” “a VR goggle,” “a VR glove comprising a plurality of built-in sensors,” and “a remote controller,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “training performance management,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a plurality of terminal devices,” “a computer,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a storage,” “VR equipment,” “a VR goggle,” “a VR glove comprising a plurality of built-in sensors,” and “a remote controller,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a plurality of terminal devices,” “a computer,” “a processor,” “a memory,” and “a storage,” as described in paras. [0046], [0049], [0050], and [0053] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0046] The terminal device 30 is a terminal device such as a server, a personal computer (PC), or a tablet.”
“[0049] The processor 12 is a computer such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and controls the entire server 10 by executing a program prepared in advance. Incidentally, as the processor 12, a CPU, a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), an MPU (Micro Processing Unit), an FPU (Floating Point number Processing Unit), a PPU (Physics Processing Unit), a TPU (Tensor Processing Unit), a quantum processor, a microcontroller, or a combination thereof can be used.”
“[0050] The memory 13 may be a ROM (Read Only Memory) and a RAM (Random Access Memory). The memory 13 temporarily stores various programs executed by the processor 12. The memory 13 is also used as a working memory during various processing performed by the processor 12.”
“[0053] The recording device 14 may be a storage device such as a removable flash memory.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a plurality of terminal devices,” “a computer,” “a processor,” “a memory,” and “a storage,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “VR equipment,” “a VR goggle,” and “a VR glove comprising a plurality of built-in sensors,” as described in paras. [0043]-[0044] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0043] The users perform the VR training using the VR equipment 20. The VR equipment 20 includes, for example, a VR goggle 20a, a remote controller 20b, a VR glove 20c. The VR equipment 20 receives the VR training contents from the server 10 and displays them on the VR goggle 20a. At this time, the VR goggle 20a displays a virtual space that faithfully reproduces the circumstance of the site. The user can perform the training on the virtual space by operating the remote controller 20b and/or the VR globe 20c.”
“[0044] Further, the VR glove 20c has a plurality of built-in sensors such as pressure-sensors, accelerometers, and gyro-sensors.”
As such, it is reasonably understood that the Applicant’s “VR equipment,” “a VR goggle,” and “a VR glove comprising a plurality of built-in sensors,” are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements and are reasonably interpreted as commercially available computing element.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a remote controller,” as described in paras. [0043]-[0044] and [0066] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides no details such that it is reasonably understood that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element.
Thus, the Applicant’s “a plurality of terminal devices,” “a computer,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a storage,” “VR equipment,” “a VR goggle,” “a VR glove comprising a plurality of built-in sensors,” and “a remote controller,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, conventional and commercially available computing elements. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 6 and 10-11 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-4, 6 and 10-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on April 8, 2026 related to claims 1-4, 6 and 8-11 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “First, claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Prong 1 of Step 2A of the subject- matter eligibility analysis. In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner contends that the claims are drawn to an abstract idea, “either in the form of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity,’ in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of ‘mental processes,’ in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion).”
Applicant respectfully disagrees, and submits that Claim 1 does not recite any features that could be considered “managing personal behavior” or “social activities’. When evaluating whether a claim recites an abstract idea under Prong 1 of Step 2A, examiners are required to distinguish claims that recite a judicial exception (which are abstract ideas that require further analysis) and claims that merely involve a judicial exception (which are patent-eligible). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1).
The October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance provides several examples of claims that recite “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”:
* a set of rules for playing a dice game, In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.;
* voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation, Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software LLC;
* assigning hair designs to balance head shape, In re Brown; and
* a series of instructions of how to hedge risk, Bilski v. Kappos.
In each of these examples, the claims actively guide a human to perform an activity in a specific manner. The features of claim 1 do not contain any such features that instruct or guide a human to act in a particular way, as is the case in the examples provided by the USPTO. At best, the claim may involve a human activity, but it certainly does not “recite” a human activity as is required to be considered a judicial exception under Step 2A of Prong 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It was never the intent of The Supreme Court of the United States of America to identify each and every possible abstract idea. Instead, their intent was to provide the framework from which subject-matter eligibility could be determined. This was, and presently is, the process used to determine subject-matter eligibility as applicable to this application. That being said, the Applicant’s claims have been identified in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions). Specifically, “determining… a best practice when the comprehensive evaluation exceeds a first threshold and the training time is shorter than the standard training time, and, in response, updating the correct-answer information…” is clearly on point with teaching and following rules or instructions, since teachers and instructors have been doing this in the analog for decades. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits the features of claim 1, including at least "input the VR training implementation information to a machine-learning model stored in the memory and trained in advance to output, for each of the plural evaluation items, an evaluation value indicating a degree of coincidence between the VR training implementation information and the correct-answer information. store the credential information in association with user identification information of the user in the storage; and based on receiving, from a terminal device, a credential request including the user identification information, extract the credential information associated with the user identification information from the storage, generate credentials for the user based on the extracted credential information, and issue the credentials to the terminal device" are not capable of being performed in the human mind or via pen and paper and thus are not directed to a mental process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required. Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and the Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Second, even if claim 1 is interpreted as a judicial exception under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1 demonstrates a technological improvement that provides a practical application for any purported abstract idea. The claimed embodiment sets forth an improvement in the technical field of VR training because the VR training information associated with a user's performance of virtual training content using VR equipment is evaluated, via a machine learning model, with respect to correct-answer information including attention, accuracy, and speed to generate credential information regarding the VR training and the credential information is stored, in a storage, in association with user identification information such that, when a credential request by a terminal device is received for specific user identification information, the credential information, that is pre-stored in association with the user identification information, can be easily extracted from the storage and issued to the terminal device for a user or third-party service to efficiently evaluate results and information related to the VR training. Furthermore, the server evaluates the comprehensive evaluation and the training time associated with the VR training information and replaces the correct-answer information with at least a portion of the VR training information when the comprehensive evaluation exceeds a first threshold and the training time is shorter than the standard training time so as to continuously update best practices for improved performance evaluation for subsequent training operations of the VR virtual content. Therefore, the efficiency and effectiveness of VR training is improved, as described in paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0016]-[0017], [0051]-[0052], and [0063] of the specification as filed.
Therefore, even assuming that the claims are directed to the abstract ideas, which the Applicant does not concede, the claimed invention is integrated the judicial exception into a practical application, because the claimed invention brings an improvement to a technology in VR training.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument appears conclusory and fails to identify any technological advancement with regard to the “technical features,” or details such that the claim reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field.
Regardless of the conclusory nature of the argument, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Third, even if claim 1 is considered to not be integrated into a practical application, when considered as a whole, claim 1 amounts to significantly more than any purported abstract idea under Step 2B. According to MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)(v), in evaluating Step 2B, an additional element or combination of elements which "[add] a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or [add] unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application," has been found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has an abstract idea of “training performance management” and fails to provide any sufficient structure to demonstrate any improvement in a generic computer system (i.e. significantly more) than the abstract idea itself. As previously stated above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite a generic computer and commercially available components interacting with a generic computer, performing routine and conventional functions of implementing instructions of an abstract idea on a computer. The claim as a whole clearly could be applied readily to other educational environments with means for collecting and generating data. As such, these additional claim elements 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. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “As no prior art rejection is provided, it is clear claim 1 provides an "inventive concept," and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Therefore, the independent claims provide a "non-conventional" technical solution that amounts to significantly more than any abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, arguments with regard to a “lack of prior art” are best suited for arguing rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The test for 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility requires claims to be examined using the “two-part Mayo test” for determining subject-matter eligibility, as previously performed above. As such, the argument is not proper for facilitating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility discussion.
Second, the Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The lack of prior art, clearing the claims of any 35 U.S.C. §§102 or 103 rejections, is not evidence of subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Third, a prior art search is not necessary to resolve whether the additional element is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity because lack of novelty (i.e., not finding the element in the prior art) does not necessarily show that an element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by those in the relevant field. In the present case, Applicant’s claims merely recite a generic computer performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality which do not meaningfully limit the claims to amount to anything “significantly more.”
Finally, there are many cases where prior art was not present yet an abstract idea in and of itself was still at issue (i.e. Ultramercial, Inc. v Hulu, LLC (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v Google, Inc. (2014); and Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS LLC (2014)). As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “In view of the foregoing, independent claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject-matter. Independent claims 8 and 9 are directed to patent eligible subject-matter for at least similar reasons. Additionally, the remaining claims depend from claim 1 and are patent-eligible for at least the same reasons.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided here and above in the rejection. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 121
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 1-9 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement. The rejection is believed moot in view of the foregoing amendments.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 are withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights