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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 1, 2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paras. [0043]-[0044] disclose element “VR globe 20c.” The Examiner reasonably believes this misspelling is a typographical error (i.e. “VR [[globe]] glove 20c”). Appropriate correction is required.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on December 1, 2025 for the patent application 18/749,685 filed on June 21, 2024. Claims 1, 3, 8 and 9 are amended. Claims 1-9 are pending. The first office action of May 22, 2025 and the second office action of August 29, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-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 1-9 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 device” (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 comprising:
gaze information indicating an eye-gaze trajectory of a user,
operation information indicating at least one of controller manipulation and hand- motion, and
a training time;
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 and store, in association with user identification information, the comprehensive evaluation and the evaluation values as credential information;
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; and
send a signal to output the credential information to the user or to a third-party service.”
Per claim 8:
“providing a VR training content;
acquiring VR training implementation information comprising:
gaze information indicating an eye-gaze trajectory of a user detected,
operation information indicating at least one of controller manipulation and hand- motion detected, 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 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;
calculating a comprehensive evaluation as a weighted sum of the evaluation values using the weighting coefficients and storing, in association with user identification information, the comprehensive evaluation and the evaluation values as credential information;
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; and
sending a signal to output the credential information to the user or to a third-party service.”
Per claim 9:
“providing a VR training content;
acquiring VR training implementation information comprising:
gaze information indicating an eye-gaze trajectory of a user detected,
operation information indicating at least one of controller manipulation and hand- motion detected, 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 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;
calculating a comprehensive evaluation as a weighted sum of the evaluation values using the weighting coefficients and storing, in association with user identification information, the comprehensive evaluation and the evaluation values as credential information;
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; and
sending a signal to output the credential information to the user or to a third-party service.”
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 computer,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a storage,” “VR equipment,” “a communication device,” “a VR goggle,” and “a VR glove,” 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 computer,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a storage,” “VR equipment,” “a communication device,” “a VR goggle,” and “a VR glove,” 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 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 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,” as described in para. [0043] 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.”
As such, it is reasonably understood that the Applicant’s “VR equipment,” “a VR goggle,” and “a VR glove,” 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 communication device,” is not found in the written description as originally filed. As such, it is reasonably understood that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements.
Thus, the Applicant’s “a computer,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a storage,” “VR equipment,” “a communication device,” “a VR goggle,” and “a VR glove,” 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 2-7 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 8 and 9, recites the following limitations: “a communication device” and “send a signal to control a display to output the credential information to the user or to a third-party service, through the communication device.” These limitations are not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. Specifically, the written description of the specification as originally filed fails to disclose any details with regard to “a communication device” and “send a signal to control a display to output the credential information to the user or to a third-party service, through the communication device,” as claimed. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the following limitation: “a second machine learning model.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. Specifically, the written description of the specification as originally filed fails to disclose any details with regard to “a second machine learning model,” as claimed. As such, the limitation is reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on December 1, 2025 related to claims 1-9 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 “send a signal to control a display to output the credential information to the user or to a third- party service, through the communication 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 is evaluated, via a machine learning model, with respect to correct-answer information to generate credential information regarding the VR training and a signal is sent to control a display to output the credential information through the communication device such that the user or third-party service is able efficiently evaluate results and information related to the VR training. Therefore, the efficiency and effectiveness of VR training is improved, as described in paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0016]- [0017] and [0051]-[0052] 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.
Conclusion
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 Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715