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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an immersive headset configured to visualize a 3D environment,” “an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem,” and “an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives” in claim 1; “a temporal dimension processor configured to display logic solution over a time period” in claim 6; “a checker that checks inferences for validity,” and “a reasoner that evaluates a program and a query and returns an answer to the query and a degree of confidence,” in claim 10; “a visualization platform configured to visualize a 3D environment,” “an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem,” and “an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives,” in claim 11; “a checker that checks inferences for validity,” and “a reasoner that evaluates a program and a query and returns an answer to the query and a degree of confidence,” in claim 18; “an immersive headset configured to visualize an nD environment,” “an editor for creating a nD hypergraph that represents a series of challenges based on a selected logic,” “an interface manager for viewing the nD hypergraph from different perspectives,” and “a system for generating a game based on the nD hypergraph,” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations – “an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem,” and “an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives” in claim 1; “a temporal dimension processor configured to display logic solution over a time period” in claim 6; “a checker that checks inferences for validity,” and “a reasoner that evaluates a program and a query and returns an answer to the query and a degree of confidence,” in claim 10; “an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem,” and “an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives,” in claim 11; “a checker that checks inferences for validity,” and “a reasoner that evaluates a program and a query and returns an answer to the query and a degree of confidence,” in claim 18; “an editor for creating a nD hypergraph that represents a series of challenges based on a selected logic,” “an interface manager for viewing the nD hypergraph from different perspectives,” and “a system for generating a game based on the nD hypergraph,” in claim 19 – invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 depends on itself. For the purposes of examination, it is read as depending on claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “Babels city” is indefinite. It is unclear what game this refers to such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize a given generated game is Babels city or not.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 depends on itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “an immersive headset configured to visualize a 3D environment,” recites generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the functionality of the editor being used to create the 3D hypergraph is recited without details of the functioning of the editor, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as being insignificant implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the functionality of the viewing the 3D hypergraph is recited without details of the hypergraph is viewed from different perspectives, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as being insignificant implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the recited abstract idea to the technological environment of immersive headsets. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality, e.g., Specification ¶ [0043] (“Within interface 12, the user is able to access 3D/4D hypergraph editor 14 to create and edit solutions including constructing nodes, arcs (i.e., arrows) for connecting nodes, tools for creating new 3D levels, AI tools for autogenerating solutions or partial solutions, etc.”), similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect user input. Furthermore, as mere instruction to apply the exception, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional because the limitation is directed to a generic function, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶ [0043] (“Within interface 12, the user is able to access 3D/4D hypergraph editor 14 to create and edit solutions including constructing nodes, arcs (i.e., arrows) for connecting nodes, tools for creating new 3D levels, AI tools for autogenerating solutions or partial solutions, etc.”), MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “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).” MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(A), 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited abstract idea, and as such is conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
As per claim 2:
The abstract idea of creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the immersive headset comprises a virtual reality (VR) enabled device,” recites generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the recited abstract idea to the technological environment of VR enabled devices. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited abstract idea, and as such is conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
As per claim 3:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the logic solution includes one of a proof, argument or computer program,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of proof, argument, or computer program included in a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 4:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein nodes of the hypergraph include formulas represented with cognitive calculus,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes including formulas represented with cognitive calculus, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 5:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “inference nodes,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes including inference nodes, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 6:
The abstract idea of creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “a temporal dimension processor configured to display logic solution over a time period,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of displaying the temporal dimension processor displaying logic solution over a time period is recited without detail of how the temporal dimension processor displays the logic solution, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the display to the particular technological environment of immersive headsets. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “a temporal dimension processor configured to display logic solution over a time period,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited abstract idea, and as such is conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
As per claim 7:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the 3D hypergraph includes: a primary proposition represented by a primary set of nodes and arcs viewable in a first x-y plane; and a secondary proposition represented by a secondary set of nodes and arcs viewable in a second x-y plane offset from the from the first x-y plane along a z-axis,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes representing respective propositions connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension in a particular arrangement, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 8:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the primary proposition has a greater importance or strength than the secondary proposition,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes representing respective propositions connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension in a particular arrangement, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 9:
The abstract idea of creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives includes viewing a subset of the nodes,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of displaying the subset without detail of how the subset is displayed, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the display to the particular technological environment of immersive headsets. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives includes viewing a subset of the nodes,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited abstract idea, and as such is conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, as the claim(s) recites an abstract idea, is directed to the recited abstract idea, and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 10:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “a checker that checks inferences for validity,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “checking” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, whether the inference is valid. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “a reasoner that evaluates a program and a query and returns an answer to the query and a degree of confidence,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “evaluating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the answer to the query based on the program. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, “returning,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a data-gathering operation that can be done via interpersonal communication by someone merely handing input data written on a piece of paper to another. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 8965 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely creating and evaluating a program representing a logic solution to a reasoning problem MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 11:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in 3D space,” “wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes and arcs, wherein each node includes one of a formula or a function, and each arc includes an inference,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes representing formulas or functions connected by arcs representing inferences arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in 3D space, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes and arcs, wherein each node includes one of a formula or a function, and each arc includes an inference is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “a visualization platform configured to visualize a 3D environment,” recites generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in 3D space,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the functionality of the editor being used to create the 3D hypergraph is recited without details of the functioning of the editor, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as being insignificant implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the functionality of the viewing the 3D hypergraph is recited without details of the hypergraph is viewed from different perspectives, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as being insignificant implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the recited abstract idea to the technological environment of visualization platforms. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in 3D space,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality, e.g., Specification ¶ [0043] (“Within interface 12, the user is able to access 3D/4D hypergraph editor 14 to create and edit solutions including constructing nodes, arcs (i.e., arrows) for connecting nodes, tools for creating new 3D levels, AI tools for autogenerating solutions or partial solutions, etc.”), similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect user input. Furthermore, as mere instruction to apply the exception, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional because the limitation is directed to a generic function, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶ [0043] (“Within interface 12, the user is able to access 3D/4D hypergraph editor 14 to create and edit solutions including constructing nodes, arcs (i.e., arrows) for connecting nodes, tools for creating new 3D levels, AI tools for autogenerating solutions or partial solutions, etc.”), MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “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).” MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(A), 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited abstract idea, and as such is conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
As per claim 12:
The abstract idea of creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in 3D space, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes and arcs, wherein each node includes one of a formula or a function, and each arc includes an inference is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the visualization platform comprises one of a virtual reality (VR) enabled device, an augmented reality (AR) enabled device, a layered interface, or a holographic system,” recites generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the recited abstract idea to the technological environment of VR enabled devices, AR enabled devices, layered interfaces, and holographic systems. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited abstract idea, and as such is conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
As per claim 13:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the logic solution includes one of a proof, argument or computer program,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of proof, argument, or computer program included in a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 14:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein nodes of the hypergraph include formulas represented with cognitive calculus,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes including formulas represented with cognitive calculus, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the 3D hypergraph includes: a primary proposition represented by a primary set of nodes and arcs viewable in a first x-y plane; and a secondary proposition represented by a secondary set of nodes and arcs viewable in a second x-y plane offset from the from the first x-y plane along a z-axis,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes representing respective propositions connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension in a particular arrangement, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 16:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the primary proposition has a greater importance or strength than the secondary proposition,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes representing respective propositions connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension in a particular arrangement, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 17:
The abstract idea of creating a 3D hypergraph that represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in 3D space, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes and arcs, wherein each node includes one of a formula or a function, and each arc includes an inference is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein viewing the3D hypergraph from different perspectives includes viewing a subset of the nodes,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of displaying the subset without detail of how the subset is displayed, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the display to the particular technological environment of immersive headsets. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives includes viewing a subset of the nodes,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited abstract idea, and as such is conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, as the claim(s) recites an abstract idea, is directed to the recited abstract idea, and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 18:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “a checker that checks inferences for validity,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “checking” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, whether the inference is valid. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “a reasoner that evaluates a program and a query and returns an answer to the query and a degree of confidence,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “evaluating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the answer to the query based on the program. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, “returning,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a data-gathering operation that can be done via interpersonal communication by someone merely handing input data written on a piece of paper to another. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 8965 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely creating and evaluating a program representing a logic solution to a reasoning problem MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “creating a nD hypergraph that represents a series of challenges based on a selected logic, wherein the nD hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in the nD environment,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “creating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the contents of a solution to the problem as expressed as nodes representing formulas or functions connected by arcs representing inferences arranged in an n dimension, e.g., using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “a system for generating a game based on the nD hypergraph, wherein each node comprises a formula that defines an object and a position into nD space, and wherein the selected logic includes gaming rules,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the rules of the game based on the hypergraph. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely generating a game based on a nD hypergraph that represents a series of challenges based on a selected logic. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
The abstract idea of generating a game based on a nD hypergraph that represents a series of challenges based on a selected logic is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “an immersive headset configured to visualize an nD environment,” recites generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “an editor for creating a nD hypergraph that represents a series of challenges based on a selected logic, wherein the nD hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in the nD environment,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the functionality of the editor being used to create the 3D hypergraph is recited without details of the functioning of the editor, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as being insignificant implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “an interface manager for viewing the nD hypergraph from different perspectives,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the functionality of the viewing the 3D hypergraph is recited without details of the hypergraph is viewed from different perspectives, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as being insignificant implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the recited abstract idea to the technological environment of visualization platforms. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “an editor for creating a nD hypergraph that represents a series of challenges based on a selected logic, wherein the nD hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in the nD environment,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality, e.g., Specification ¶ [0043] (“Within interface 12, the user is able to access 3D/4D hypergraph editor 14 to create and edit solutions including constructing nodes, arcs (i.e., arrows) for connecting nodes, tools for creating new 3D levels, AI tools for autogenerating solutions or partial solutions, etc.”), similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect user input. Furthermore, as mere instruction to apply the exception, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional because the limitation is directed to a generic function, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) (“Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished “), and despite the lack of specific disclosed acts, steps, procedure or algorithm to accomplish the recited function, Specification ¶ [0043] (“Within interface 12, the user is able to access 3D/4D hypergraph editor 14 to create and edit solutions including constructing nodes, arcs (i.e., arrows) for connecting nodes, tools for creating new 3D levels, AI tools for autogenerating solutions or partial solutions, etc.”), MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2164.08, based on absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, MPEP § 2164.01(a), that Applicant’s reliance upon the skilled artisan’s knowledge to provide the necessary information to reduce the purely functional disclosure to practice is sufficient for enablement, MPEP §§ 2164.01, 2164.05(b), and therefore this limitation is disclosed “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).” MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(A), 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “an interface manager for viewing the nD hypergraph from different perspectives,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the recited abstract idea, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the recited abstract idea, and as such is conventional. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05.
As per claim 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the game comprises Babels city,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the rules of a particular game based on the hypergraph. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellmann et al., Visualization and Exploration of Linked Data Using Virtual Reality, in view of Bringsjord et al., US 2019/0251454 A1.
As per claim 1, Kellmann teaches:
an immersive headset configured to visualize a 3D environment, Kellmann pg. 7 (“VR headset”); and
an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in an x, y, and z dimension, Kellmann pg. 4, where the user can create new nodes and edges (arcs); and
an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives, Kellmann pg. 4, where rotating the graph changes the perspective it is viewed from.
Kellmann, however, does not teach:
the 3D hypergraph represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-0024.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kellmann further teaches:
wherein the immersive headset comprises a virtual reality (VR) enabled device, Kellmann pg. 7 (“Quest 2 VR headset”).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
wherein the logic solution includes one of a proof, argument or computer program.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as a proof, argument, or computer program to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
wherein nodes of the hypergraph include formulas represented with cognitive calculus.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes including formulas represented with cognitive calculus to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24, 0031.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
further comprising inference nodes.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes as a series of inferences to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kellmann further teaches:
wherein the system for rendering and processing logic solutions further includes a temporal dimension processor configured to display logic solution over a time period, Kellmann ¶ 0045, where a solution is developed over time.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
a primary proposition represented by a primary set of nodes and arcs viewable in a first x-y plane; and
a secondary proposition represented by a secondary set of nodes and arcs viewable in a second x-y plane offset from the from the first x-y plane along a z-axis.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord while arranging nodes in a visually-grouped manner as a design choice when arranging the nodes so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
wherein the primary proposition has a greater importance or strength than the secondary proposition.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord while arranging nodes in a visually-grouped manner as a design choice when arranging the nodes so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kellmann further teaches:
wherein viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives includes viewing a subset of the nodes, Kellmann pg. 8, where changing the view changes the viewable nodes and perspective thereof.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
a checker that checks inferences for validity; and
a reasoner that evaluates a program and a query and returns an answer to the query and a degree of confidence.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes to a reasoning problem, including a checker and reasoner. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24, 0031-33.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph and to evaluate student progress.
As per claim 11, Kellmann teaches:
a visualization platform configured to visualize a 3D environment, Kellmann pg. 7 (“VR headset”); and
an editor for creating a 3D hypergraph, wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in 3D space, Kellmann pg. 4, where the user can create new nodes and edges (arcs); and
an interface manager for viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives, Kellmann pg. 4, where rotating the graph changes the perspective it is viewed from;
wherein the 3D hypergraph includes nodes and arcs, Kellmann pg. 4, where nodes and edges are created
Kellmann, however, does not teach:
The 3D hypergraph represents a logic solution to a reasoning problem and wherein each node includes one of a formula or a function, and each arc includes an inference.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-0024.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, and Kellmann further teaches:
wherein the visualization platform comprises one of a virtual reality (VR) enabled device, an augmented reality (AR) enabled device, a layered interface, or a holographic system, Kellmann pg. 7 (“Quest 2 VR headset”).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
wherein the logic solution includes one of a proof, argument or computer program.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as a proof, argument, or computer program to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
wherein nodes of the hypergraph include formulas represented with cognitive calculus.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes including formulas represented with cognitive calculus to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24, 0031.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
a primary proposition represented by a primary set of nodes and arcs viewable in a first x-y plane; and
a secondary proposition represented by a secondary set of nodes and arcs viewable in a second x-y plane offset from the from the first x-y plane along a z-axis.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord while arranging nodes in a visually-grouped manner as a design choice when arranging the nodes so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
wherein the primary proposition has a greater importance or strength than the secondary proposition.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes to a reasoning problem. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord while arranging nodes in a visually-grouped manner as a design choice when arranging the nodes so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph.
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, and Kellmann further teaches:
wherein viewing the 3D hypergraph from different perspectives includes viewing a subset of the nodes, Kellmann pg. 8, where changing the view changes the viewable nodes and perspective thereof.
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
a checker that checks inferences for validity; and
a reasoner that evaluates a program and a query and returns an answer to the query and a degree of confidence.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution as expressed as nodes to a reasoning problem, including a checker and reasoner. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24, 0031-33.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph and to evaluate student progress.
As per claim 19, Kellmann teaches:
an immersive headset configured to visualize an nD environment, Kellmann pg. 7 (“VR headset”); and
an editor for creating a nD hypergraph, wherein the nD hypergraph includes nodes connected by arcs arranged in the nD environment, Kellmann pg. 4, where the user can create new nodes and edges (arcs); and
an interface manager for viewing the nD hypergraph from different perspectives, Kellmann pg. 4, where rotating the graph changes the perspective it is viewed from.
Kellmann, however, does not teach:
the nD hypergraph represents a series of challenges on a selected logic; or
a system for generating a game based on the nD hypergraph, wherein each node comprises a formula that defines an object and a position into nD space, and wherein the selected logic includes gaming rules.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution to a game as expressed as nodes to a reasoning problem, including games. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24, 0046.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph and to evaluate student progress.
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated, but Kellmann does not teach:
the game comprises Babels city.
The analogous and compatible art of Bringsjord, however, teaches a graph representing a logic solution to a game as expressed as nodes to a reasoning problem, including games, where the particular game is nonfunctional descriptive matter without patentable weight. Bringsjord ¶¶ 0021-24, 0046.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bringsjord with those of Kellmann to use the interface of Kellmann to edit and view the logic solution of Bringsjord so as to harness the capabilities of the VR-viewer to assist the user in gaining insights about the graph and to evaluate student progress.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights