CTNF 18/813,875 CTNF 74430 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility Standard When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. , 573 U.S. (2014). Analysis Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-18 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below: Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “ generating a map, collecting data, simulating .” The limitations of: generating a digital map of a real-world space and objects therein using images of the space; and using the digital map for execution of a virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) computer simulation. as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ a processor ,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “ processor ” language, “ generating, using ” in the context of this claim generating a map, collecting data, simulating . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “ mental process / data collection ” grouping of abstract ideas. Such activities are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance and case law (e.g., Alice, Electric Power Group, etc.), particularly when implemented on generic computers for economic or organizational purposes. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. There is no indication of a technological improvement or a technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not recite a specific or unconventional way of generating a map, collecting data, simulating . Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim recites conventional steps such as “ generating a map, collecting data, simulating .” No element or combination provides a technical improvement or “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible because it is directed to an abstract idea (mental process / data collection (images) ), is not integrated into a practical application, and lacks an inventive concept beyond generic computer implementation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA 3. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Broadski et al (US 2016/0026253 A1) . As per claim 1, Broadski et al disclose a method, comprising: generating a digital map of a real-world space and objects therein using images of the space (the cloud 4654 may use images and fiducials to segment 3-D objects from more static 3-D background, images may provide texture maps for objects and the world (textures may be real-time videos). The cloud resources may store and make available static fiducials and textures for world registration, para [0931], fig. 64); and using the digital map for execution of a virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) computer simulation (in one embodiment, cloud resources may pass digital models or real and virtual worlds between users, as described above in reference to “passable world”, with the models being rendered by the individual users based upon parameters and textures, para [0927]). As per claim 2, Broadski et al disclose the method of Claim 15, comprising: identifying at least one hiding place in the digital map; and selectively presenting at least one virtual object not having a counterpart in the real-world space in the hiding place (the AR.System may respond by rendering virtual interface elements to appear on the now visible faces, which were previously hidden from the view of the user, para 1096]). As per claim 3, Broadski et al disclose the method of Claim 16, wherein the virtual object is not presented on the display unless a player executes a predetermined act to locate the virtual object (or if the virtual object is approaching from the right side, the sound may be modified such that the user instinctively turn to the right to look at the virtual object, para [1157]). As per claim 4, Broadski et al disclose As per claim he method of Claim 17, wherein the predetermined act comprises looking at the virtual object (or if the virtual object is approaching from the right side, the sound may be modified such that the user instinctively turn to the right to look at the virtual object, para [1157]). As per claim 5, Broadski et al disclose the method of Claim 16, comprising identifying the hiding place using at least one machine learning (ML) model (a machine learning framework can be used to implement the normalization process, so that the learned normalization from a local set of points is used to normalize a second point, and so on until all necessary points have been normalized, para [0828]). As per claim 6, Broadski et al disclose the method of Claim 15, wherein the digital map comprises a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) data structure (a set of “sparse point representation” may be the output of a simultaneously localization and mapping (or “SLAM”; or V-SLAM” 5124. This refers to a configuration wherein the input is an image/visual only) process, para [0795, fig. 51). As per claim 7, Broadski et al disclose an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor system configured for: generating a digital map of a real-world space and objects therein using images of the space (the cloud 4654 may use images and fiducials to segment 3-D objects from more static 3-D background, images may provide texture maps for objects and the world (textures may be real-time videos); and using the digital map for execution of a virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) computer simulation (VR) or augmented reality (AR) computer simulation (in one embodiment, cloud resources may pass digital models or real and virtual worlds between users, as described above in reference to “passable world”, with the models being rendered by the individual users based upon parameters and textures, para [0927]). As per claim 8, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 7, wherein the processor system is configured for: identifying at least one hiding place in the digital map; and selectively presenting at least one virtual object not having a counterpart in the real-world space in the hiding place (the AR System may respond by rendering virtual interface elements to appear on the now visible faces, which were previously hidden from the view of the user, para 1096]). As per claim 9, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 8, wherein the virtual object is not presented on the display unless a player executes a predetermined act to locate the virtual object (or if the virtual object is approaching from the right side, the sound may be modified such that the user instinctively turn to the right to look at the virtual object, para [1157]). As per claim 10, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the predetermined act comprises looking at the virtual object (or if the virtual object is approaching from the right side, the sound may be modified such that the user instinctively turn to the right to look at the virtual object, para [1157]). As per claim 11, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 8, wherein the processor system is configured for identifying the hiding place using at least one machine learning (ML) model (a machine learning framework can be used to implement the normalization process, so that the learned normalization from a local set of points is used to normalize a second point, and so on until all necessary points have been normalized, para [0828]). As per claim 12, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 7, wherein the digital map comprises a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) data structure (a set of “sparse point representation” may be the output of a simultaneously localization and mapping (or “SLAM”; or V-SLAM” 5124. This refers to a configuration wherein the input is an image/visual only) process, para [0795, fig. 51). As per claim 13, Broadski et al disclose an apparatus, comprising: at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor system configured for: generating a digital map of a real-world space and objects therein using images of the space (the cloud 4654 may use images and fiducials to segment 3-D objects from more static 3-D background, images may provide texture maps for objects and the world (textures may be real-time videos); and using the digital map for execution of a virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) computer simulation (VR) or augmented reality (AR) computer simulation (in one embodiment, cloud resources may pass digital models or real and virtual worlds between users, as described above in reference to “passable world”, with the models being rendered by the individual users based upon parameters and textures, para [0927]). As per claim 14, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 13, wherein the instructions are executable for: identifying at least one hiding place in the digital map; and selectively presenting at least one virtual object not having a counterpart in the real-world space in the hiding place (the AR System may respond by rendering virtual interface elements to appear on the now visible faces, which were previously hidden from the view of the user, para 1096]).. As per claim 15, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 14, wherein the virtual object is not presented on the display unless a player executes a predetermined act to locate the virtual object (or if the virtual object is approaching from the right side, the sound may be modified such that the user instinctively turn to the right to look at the virtual object, para [1157]). As per claim 16, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the predetermined act comprises looking at the virtual object (or if the virtual object is approaching from the right side, the sound may be modified such that the user instinctively turn to the right to look at the virtual object, para [1157]). As per claim 17, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 14, wherein the instructions are executable for identifying the hiding place using at least one machine learning (ML) model (a machine learning framework can be used to implement the normalization process, so that the learned normalization from a local set of points is used to normalize a second point, and so on until all necessary points have been normalized, para [0828]). As per claim 18, Broadski et al disclose the apparatus of Claim 13, wherein the digital map comprises a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) data structure (a set of “sparse point representation” may be the output of a simultaneously localization and mapping (or “SLAM”; or V-SLAM” 5124. This refers to a configuration wherein the input is an image/visual only) process, para [0795, fig. 51) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See references cited on PTO form 892. 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4:30 ET. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. PNG media_image1.png 275 275 media_image1.png Greyscale /Ronald Laneau/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/813,875 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights