DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on June 10th, 2026. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-19, 21 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claims 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more.
Claims not rejected under § 102/103. The closest combination of art is the relied upon combination in the Feb. 2026 non-final action, taken in further view of newly cited Barret et al., US 2006/0089763, ¶ 54, however this does not fairly teach the “wherein, upon virtually entering a particular simulated area of the plurality of simulated areas, a particular area coordinate system of the particular simulated area expands, contracts, or a combination thereof, while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings;” in combination with “execute, responsive to the at least one user interaction, the structural programming to dynamically adjust at least one of a size, a position, or shape of at least one of the simulated space or at least one of the at least the plurality of simulated areas while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings.” in combination with “wherein the at least one digital layout comprises structural programming defining, based on the layout parameters, for the simulated space, a plurality of relational mappings including relative positional relationships of: the simulated space, having a simulated space coordinate system, with respect to the virtual environment coordinate system, and a plurality of simulated areas, having a plurality simulated area coordinate systems, of with respect to the simulated space coordinate system;” (claim 1 as representative) limitation when read in ordered combination with the other features of the claimed invention.
This action is Final
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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the Priority
Maintained. Remarks are conclusory and do not address the rationale of the rejection itself.
Regarding the § 112(b) Rejection
Maintained. Amendments to the specification do not exclude that “and” is, under the BRI, also conveying the same meaning as “or”, rather they only state that “and” may take its ordinary plain meaning, but do not expressly define it to only take its ordinary plain meaning. Examiner suggested amendment, as per prior actions, is to delete ¶ 37, or otherwise amend it to make clear that “and” only means “and” and cannot also mean “or”.
Regarding the § 112(a) Rejection
Withdrawn in view of amendment, new grounds below as necessitated by amendment.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks at 16 ¶ 3, Examiner notes that merely executing an abstract idea on a computer/doing it in a computer environment does not render the abstract idea eligible.
With respect to the prong 1 remarks, doing an abstract idea in a generic computer environment does not render it eligible, nor do steps such as mere data gathering and mere data displaying. The Examiner’s prior analogy to cartography is apt, for the core of this inventive concept in the claim, i.e. what the claim is directed to, is hierarchical coordinate systems for relating different areas that are at different scales. Which is exactly what hierarchical coordinate systems do, as detailed in the action. Even the limitation itself uses the term “mapping”, which is an act of cartography. The claim then merely uses this to render/display the information (the simulated space) resultant from the mapping (i.e. the abstract idea). The claim recites no particularity in the rendering step in how it is to be done, but rather merely what it is to render, and that it is in a generic GUI.
Mere data displaying and data rendering does not render an abstract idea eligible, nor does doing it in real-time/at run time. See MPEP § 2106.05(g): “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and” and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D): “ A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and” - without some particular technological implementation of how it is rendered, which is lacking in the present claims (contrast with, in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): “ii. A method of rendering a halftone digital image, Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868-69, 97 USPQ2d 1274, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010);” as more detailed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): “ a claim to a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image), Research Corp. Techs., 627 F.3d at 868, 97 USPQ2d at 1280.”) - but a claim wherein it is “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) is not eligible.
With respect to prong 2 remarks, the abstract idea itself (the hierarchical coordinate system) cannot furnish the improvement to technology. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.")” – and simply appending data gathering and data displaying to the abstract idea does not integrate it into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(g): “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and” and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D): “ A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and”
With respect to Desjardins, that case is not reasonably analogous for that was directed to a particular machine learning claim with an improvement in machine learning technology. The alleged improvement is in displaying data – see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:.. viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “
Furthermore, these remarks focus heavily on the term “structural programming”, but the specification conveys that this is essentially just instructions to do it on a computer. ¶ 101: “The structural programming language may include, e.g., a markup language, object-orient programming language, scripting language, among others or any combination thereof.” – that is not a practical application.
The remarks alleging the virtual entering limitation are merely specifying when part of the abstract idea is to occur when executed on the computer – simply stating when it occurs does not integrate a practical application, especially when the specification conveys that this is merely during a data displaying step. See rejection below for clarity on these newly amended limitations.
With respect to the further remarks on rendering (page 19), these remarks make clear the only inventive concept herein is the hierarchical coordinate system, i.e. the abstract idea. Simply using this to render/display information using the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, see rejection below to clarify with the amended subject matter.
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn in view of amendment. Remarks moot as rejection was withdrawn in view of the present amendments.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63591840, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 1-20 are not sufficiently described in the ‘840 application.
To concisely describe some of the below issues, the Feb. 14th, 2025 remarks point to (in response to the § 101 rejection) ¶ 40 in the instant disclosure for its description of a “hierarchical coordinate system” and then alleges that this is reflected in the present claims by several particular recitations. The ‘840 provision application has no mention of such a hierarchical coordinate system (e.g. ¶ 132).
To further clarify, by a listing of examples of the issues:
For example, claim 1 recites: “generating, by the at least one processor, at least one digital object in the at least one of the plurality of simulated areas corresponding to the at least one external integration, the at least one digital object comprising at least one computer instruction configured to integrate the at least one external software function into the at least one of the plurality of simulated areas;” – however, the only mention of a digital object in the ‘840 is in ¶ 126; there is no recitation of an “external integration” let alone used in this particular combination (MPEP § 2163(II)(A) for Hyatt v. Dudas, 2007).
For a second example, claim 1 recites a “mapping, by the at least one processor,..” – however the only mention of a coordinate system in the ‘840 is in ¶ 132, and the mapping step is generically described at a high level in ¶¶ 67, 77, 79, and 100 – i.e. this particular presently claimed combination is not sufficiently described.
A similar issue exists in claim 1 for the “dynamically define a size, independently of the at least one virtual environment 3D coordinate system, while maintaining the relative positional relationships, in response to at least one user interaction with the simulated space, of each of:…” feature, as this is simply not described in the ‘840 in particular combination.
Claim 11 has similar issues, as does claim 21. The dependent claims inherit these issues, and add in their own issues under § 112(a), e.g. the term “cash register” such as used in claims 2 and 3 is not recited in the ‘840 application, let alone in the particular manner they are being used in the present claims, similar for the “chat bot” of claim 3, etc.
This is a non-exhaustive list of features presently claimed invention that are not sufficiently described in the ‘840 application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon.
See MPEP 2163(II)(A): "For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.""
Also, see MPEP 2163(I) for Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Representative claim 1 recites:
mapping…wherein, upon virtually entering a particular simulated area of the plurality of simulated areas, a particular area coordinate system of the particular simulated area expands, contracts, or a combination thereof, while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings;
causing to render, by the at least one processor, in a graphical user interface, the simulated space for access via at least one computing device, wherein the simulated space is configured to:… and execute, responsive to the at least one user interaction, the structural programming to dynamically adjust at least one of a size, a position, or shape of at least one of the simulated space or at least one of the plurality of simulated areas while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings.
The specification does not sufficiently support the particular combination of having these two distinct steps in the ordered combination. See ¶¶ 41, 111-112.
To clarify, at issue is that while the specification does describe in ¶ 111 that the space maying engine may cause the rendering engine to do the cited step upon “virtually entering”, this is not virtual entering in the mapping step, but rather in the rendering step (note the rendering engine is the one doing this is ¶ 111). ¶ 112 further clarify that as the user is moving through the space/area, an object such as a clothing rack may continually expand. ¶ 41 conveys a similar idea, but at issue is that these do not convey the “while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings.” occurs during this – rather, see ¶ 40 and ¶ 111 which links this only to the virtual entering.
Examiner suggests amending the claims to expressly reflect what is disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-19, 21 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “and” in claims 1-20 is used by the claims to mean “or,” while the accepted meaning is “and”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
See MPEP § 2173.05(a)(II): “The requirements for clarity and precision must be balanced with the limitations of the language and the science. If the claims, read in light of the specification, reasonably apprise those skilled in the art both of the utilization and scope of the invention, and if the language is as precise as the subject matter permits, the statute (35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph) demands no more. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313, 110 USPQ2d at 1789 ("[H]ow much clarity is required necessarily invokes some standard of reasonable precision in the use of language in the context of the circumstances."). This does not mean that the examiner must accept the best effort of applicant. If the language is not considered as precise as the subject matter permits, the examiner should provide reasons to support the conclusion of indefiniteness and is encouraged to suggest alternatives that would not be subject to rejection.”
See ¶ 37 in the original disclosure: “As used herein, the terms "and" and "or" may be used interchangeably to refer to a set of items in both the conjunctive and disjunctive in order to encompass the full description of combinations and alternatives of the items. By way of example, a set of items may be listed with the disjunctive "or", or with the conjunction "and." In either case, the set is to be interpreted as meaning each of the items singularly as alternatives, as well as any combination of the listed items” - see ¶ 37 in the specification amendment, June 2026. The June 2026 amendment does not limit “and” to only being conjunctive, i.e. taking its ordinary plain meaning, but rather say it “may” take that meaning. The remaining parts of ¶ 37 in the amended specification convey similar to the original ¶ 37, i.e. “and” may also be interpreted as “or”.
To clarify on this definition, a claim to a method comprising steps A, B, and C has the exact same scope as a claim to a method comprising steps A, B, or C (i.e. a method in which only one step is required).
At issue is that ¶ 37 does not provide sufficient clear public notice of this special definition, because the terms “and” and “or” are not technological terms of art, but rather ordinary simple English words with well-accepted meanings known to all English speakers. In other words, no reasonable POSITA would read the term “and” to be “or”, rather they would look for the claims and the disclose to explicitly recite “or” instead of the term “and”. MPEP § 2111.01(I): “Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say.”)
To further clarify, MPEP § 2173.05(a)(III): “See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("While we have held many times that a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning," in such a situation the written description must clearly redefine a claim term "so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term."); Hormone Research Foundation Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 15 USPQ2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” – to put POSITA on clear notice that “or” is to be used instead of “and” in a claim, POSITA would reasonably expect the claim to recite “or” explicitly. POSITA would expect such clear notice to be explicit in the present claims because these terms are ordinary, simple, English words.
For purposes of Examination, the Examiner uses the well accepted meanings of these ordinary simple English terms, and suggests the Applicant delete ¶ 37.
To clarify on how “or” is construed, the Examiner interprets it as an inclusive “or”, i.e. “A, B, or C” conveys “A, B, or C, or any combination thereof”.
The Examiner suggests deleting ¶ 37. Terms such as “and” need no express definition to be consistent with its ordinary meaning.
As a final point, should this rejection be overturned,
then the Examiner’s claim construction is forced by the special definition in the specification of “and” to read every “and” in the claims as an “or”, i.e. claim 1 would only require the “receiving…” step, and so on, e.g. claim 4 is an “or” on the steps, etc.
Therefore, under such a construction, the independent claims would be anticipated under § 102 by any refence that merely taught this first limitation in the independent claims, along with the preamble, regardless of any later limitations in the claim. Any limitation that recited an “and” in the limitation would also be construed as “or”, e.g. determining element A and B would be construed as “A or B” under the BRI consistent with the special definition.
In other words, the claim construction by the Examiner is that the Examiner is reading “and” as solely “and” and giving no weight to the special definition of this word, for compact prosecution, else the rejections would only need to address the first limitation of the independent claims to reject them. Should it be overturned with ¶ 37 in its current form, then the Examiner submits that the rejections only need to address the first limitation of the independent claims to reject them, such as under § 102, as the special definition of “and” would make the claim into a list of limitations ending with “or”, i.e. A, or B, or C, under the BRI.
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 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 11 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 21 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claims 11 and 21, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
mapping, by the at least one processor, the at least one digital layout onto the simulated space and the plurality of simulated areas in the at least one virtual environment, to define a simulated space layout for the simulated space and a plurality of simulated area layouts for the plurality of simulated areas within the simulated space, based at least in part on the simulated space coordinate system and the structural programming defining the plurality of relational mappings;
wherein the simulated space coordinate system is mapped to at least one position in the at least one virtual environment 3D coordinate system to locate the simulated space in the at least one virtual environment;
wherein structural programming comprises a computer programming language that is configured to independently and dynamically define a size, independently of the at least one virtual environment 3D coordinate system, while maintaining the relative positional relationships, in response to at least one user interaction with the simulated space, of each of:
the simulated space via the simulated space coordinate system, and the plurality of simulated areas via the plurality of simulated area coordinate systems;
wherein, upon virtually entering a particular simulated area of the plurality of simulated areas, a particular area coordinate system of the particular simulated area expands, contracts, or a combination thereof, while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings;
A mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer/ in a computer environment.
To clarify, this is merely mapping a layout (e.g. the layout of a room) onto another space (e.g. the space of the building that the room occupies), along with other area layouts (e.g. other rooms in the building). To do so with a coordinate system is no less abstract, e.g. having a coordinate system for each room with an origin at a corner (e.g. the Northeast corner, for example), wherein each of these coordinate systems are readily related to a higher-level coordinate system of the building, e.g. by simple mathematical relationships (e.g. building has its coordinate system in the NE corner of the building, and all other coordinate systems are references to that origin by simple addition/subtraction of coordinates, e.g. latitude and longitude). The relational mapping are no less abstract, they merely specify relative positioning, e.g. the building is 100m x 100m, origin at the NE corner. Room one is 10mx10m, located on the eastern outer wall of the building, with the top of the room 50 m from the NE corner of the building, i.e. the origin of the coordinate system of the room is the NE corner of the room, readily referenced to the building origin point by simply a 50 m south offset (i.e. the room’s NE corner is 50 m south of the building origin point/NE corner).
From these coordinate systems, a person is also readily able to determine coordinates for various objects in the rooms, and their locations in both coordinate systems, e.g. a chair with its origin at its NE corner, sitting 5m south of the NE corner of the room along the exterior wall, is 55 m south of the NE corner of the building on its coordinate system.
Even to do this in 3D is no less abstract, simply add a z dimension to the coordinate system, e.g. the walls are 3m in height from the ground (0 m origin), so suppose the chair is 3m in height. The chair coordinate for its NE corner, at the top of the chair, would be 55m S, 0m E, 3m in the z-direction on the building coordinate system, and 5 m S, 0 m E, 3m in the z-direction in the room coordinate system.
The defining of size is merely an aspect of the use of such coordinate systems, e.g. the chair takes a substantial more percentage of space in the room coordinate system then the building coordinate system.
The expansion/contraction limitation is no less abstract, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer. See ¶ 41: “Thus, in spaces and/or areas where digital items placed therein may vary, such as different store shelves, furniture, park or stage dimensions, or other digital items, the space and/or area may automatically expand or contract to fit the digital items. Such expansion or contraction may occur in real-time while a user is moving through the space/area, such as following a clothing rack that continually expands with additional offerings.” - e.g. suppose an interior designer takes the drawings from the architect, with the coordinate systems from the architect, and then goes into room design mentally (e.g. mentally visualizing the space in the room from observations of the drawings, or observing a displayed CAD model on a computer screen). They decide that the coordinate system of the room lacks the granularity to do interior design, so they want to expand the coordinate system of the room and improve its granularity, e.g. suppose the room coordinate system was on graph paper, and had one square of the graph paper = 1 m x 1m. They simply re-draw/re-scale it, e.g. each square of the new coordinate system is now 1 cm x 1cm (thus greatly expanding the size of the coordinate system such as on paper, and to do this in 3D is readily done mentally, or by using various methods of drawing 3D coordinate systems on paper, e.g. directly as a 2D perspective view of the 3D coordinate system, or as a series of 2D grids (x-y, x-z, y-z), but are readily able to do so and maintain the relational mappings by simple geometrical mathematical relationships.
A person would also readily be able to use a computer as a tool to perform this step, e.g. having the sketches of the various placements, and then manipulating a 3D CAD model on the computer to reflect the various placements/other parts of the layout. The claim does not recite with any particularity how this “mapping…” is performed in a technological manner that would require a particular technological implementation of this step, i.e. “where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A); and “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) – and, structural programming is a computer programming language (¶ 101) which is lacking any particular detail.
To further clarify, such a simple mental process is a foundational part of cartography, land surveying, property rights, etc.
To clarify, the planet earth has a coordinate system long-used in mental processes, i.e. latitude and longitude, such as to circumnavigate the planet, or sail across the Atlantic Ocean.
Latitude and longitude are not grid lines on a flat sheet of paper, but rather grid lines in 3D spherical space.
Cartographers have long used mapping techniques such as the Mercator projection (long pre-dating computers and the US constitution) to map 3D spherical objects, i.e. the Earth, to a map, hence creating the well-known size distortions in commonplace maps at the poles.
Next, cities also have maps, wherein city maps might be by latitude and longitude, or they might be by a local reference point, e.g. the 1st boundary stone of Washington DC marking its outer boards, e.g. such as in the maps of Washington DC that were created when planning out the city. Or New York.
Or they might have both, e.g. street addresses, when streets follow a common set pattern, e.g. in Washington DC, the US capitol forms the origin of the coordinate system of the streets, with the street names taking numbered values for North to South Streets, wherein each location in the city is readily identifiable by street address as well as latitude and longitude.
Property boundary lines are another common example, e.g. in dividing a region of land to form parcels, then sub-dividing, etc., the property boundary lines are generally not in latitude and longitude (e.g. GPS didn’t exist for the creation of many property boundaries) but rather have their own local coordinate system, thus they have a common reference point, or reference points, in each area, referred to as a survey marker (or other terms such as benchmarks, survey monuments, geodetic markers, etc.), wherein the survey markers are placed on latitude and longitude.
By doing such a hierarchical coordinate system (i.e. a lower level one for plots of land, and a global coordinate system) wherein the lower level one is referenced to the higher level one by the survey marker coordinates. Thus, one can relationally map from one system to another, e.g. a corner of a plot of land may readily be mapped back to latitude and longitude; but a surveyor, or at least one 100 years ago, or longer (e.g. George Washington), would have found the location by reference to the marker itself (e.g. using measurement tools to get to a certain distance in a compass direction from the marker, that point being the point in the local coordinate system with the origin at the marker, and distances specified by that origin).
To do it for 3D coordinate systems is no less abstract in cartography, i.e. just add altitude/elevation. One could readily do a local elevation axis as well, e.g. instead of referencing sea level, reference to the elevation at the survey marker (e.g. in the times before adequate means of precising measuring elevation in a widely available manner).
To add more levels is similar no less abstract, e.g. now the plot boundaries have been laid out on the local system by a surveyor such as George Washington (a noted surveyor, among other things), and the architect arrives (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, a noted architect, among other things), and the architect realizes quickly that it would be impossible (or just difficult) in the 1800s to design a building on the grid system of the city map due to how coarse it is for the property.
So they decide instead to create their own grid system, using the survey markers at the corners/edges of the lot as the reference points/limits of their grid system, and set out another coordinate system so as to create the blue prints of the building. In doing so, they may readily have used mentally multiple grid systems, e.g. for a complex building, e.g. Montacello, they may well have created another grid system for a lower level of detail, e.g. for a particular room that called for elaborate frescos, columns, etc., wherein that room received its own coordinate system referenced/relationally mapped to the higher levels by its boundaries.
The resizing feature is merely a result of such mappings, i.e. if you define the boundaries of a building in latitude and longitude, then a person, e.g. a surveyor, would readily be able to mentally use the hierarchical coordinate systems of the property maps (with the reference markers) to map the dimensions (and thereby resize the building to a second coordinate system) to the local map, similar as an architect would zoom in further to their own coordinate system in their mental process (e.g. in drawing blueprints).
Or, for another example, see United States mailing addresses, e.g. the USPTO headquarters is located at 600 Dulany St., Alexandria, VA, 22314. The “600 Dulany St.” identifies the location the lowest level coordinate system of the street coordinates. “Alexandria, VA”, identifies the next two levels – city and state; 22314 identifies a separate coordinate system (but higher level than the street address) of the ZIP code grid system (i.e. the US is subdivided into a plurality of areas, each area of which gets its own ZIP code, and several areas have a two-level ZIP code, as the higher level ZIP code region, e.g. 22314, is subdivided into smaller regions).
In other words, it’s an abstract idea – and the claim merely recites the use of this abstract idea used, but do it on a computer. E.g. ¶ 40 discusses how the sizing at each level of the hierarchy may be different – see maps, which use a hierarchical coordinate system for this exact purpose, e.g. a map of the United States ZIP codes is not going to show 600 Dulany St.; but it will show the regions that each ZIP code covers.
The next level down in the map hierarchy (or a few levels more likely, e.g. a hierarchy of world map -> US map -> state level map -> city level map (and, if a larger city, e.g. NYC, potentially more levels)) would scale up/resize, e.g. a city streets map of Alexandria VA would readily be expected to show 600 Dulany St.
determining, by the at least one processor, at least one activity associated with the plurality of simulated areas; - a mental judgement/evaluation, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer.
determining, by the at least one processor, at least one external software integration providing at least one external software function associated with performing the at least one activity; - a mental judgement/evaluation, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer and with generic computer components. See ¶ 17 to clarify on the BRI of external integration, e.g. “a cash register that integrates at least one payment service into the virtual space,” – e.g. a person mentally judging that the activity is to be selling products, and mentally judges to put a cash register into the area so as to enable selling of products, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer and with generic computer components
generating, by the at least one processor, at least one digital object in at least one of the at plurality of simulated areas corresponding to the at least one external integration, the at least one digital object comprising at least one computer instruction configured to integrate the at least one external software function into the at least one of the plurality of simulated areas; a mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer. For example, ¶ 17: “In some aspects, the techniques described herein relate to a method, wherein the at least
one digital object corresponding to the at least one external integration includes at least one of:
a cash register that integrates at least one payment service into the virtual space” – e.g. the person mentally judged/evaluated that the area is planned to become a store, e.g. a pet store, and so they judge that a cash register is required for the store to be a store, and thus they observe the space and mentally evaluate where to put the cash register, e.g. mentally visualizing the cash register goes on top of a countertop in the space, thus providing the addition function of allowing sales activity because there is a cash register.
…dynamically adjust at least one of a size, a position, or shape of at least one of the simulated space or at least one of the plurality of simulated areas while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings – similar to the expansion/contraction of the coordinate system limitation discussed above.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”.
As such, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Claim 1 and 21 for “by at least one processor”, and claim 11 preamble
…virtual…digital…simulated… dynamically …structural programming…wherein structural programming comprises a computer programming language…- part of the mere instructions to use a computer, and generic computer components, as a tool to implement the abstract idea/do it in a computer environment
The recitation of “external software function” is also part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer/in a computer environment. See ¶ 7, e.g. add a cash register to the space, but do it in a computer environment.
wherein, upon virtually entering a particular simulated area of the plurality of simulated areas, … wherein the at least one digital object is configured to, upon interaction by a user, cause the at least one external integration to perform the at least one external software function associated with performing the at least one activity; - this is akin to “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)
To clarify, the upon virtually entering is merely “apply it” [apply the abstract idea] at a certain event happening (the virtual entering), with no restriction on how the virtual entering is to be done
To clarify, the external integration being performed is merely “apply it” as well – see ¶ 7, e.g. add a cash register which integrated a payment service, but with no restriction on how this it be done, i.e. its merely specifying the desired result. And the claim does not even recite that, but merely is executing/performing a software function associated with the activity – i.e. mere instructions to do it on a computer
and execute, responsive to the at least one user interaction, the structural programming to dynamically adjust at least one of a size, a position, or shape of at least one of the simulated space or at least one of the plurality of simulated areas while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings. – mere instructions to apply it/do it in a computer environment.
To clarify, The recitations of “structural programming” and associated portions, e.g. “executing” it, and “wherein structural programming comprises a computer programming language”, etc. are nothing more than the mere instruction to do it on a computer in the context of computer programming languages, generally linking to the field of use, and an insignificant computer implementation. E.g. ¶ 101 clarifies that it includes being a “markup language” – see the discussion of XML, which is a markup language (that is the “ML” in its abbreviation, which stands for eXtensible markup language), in MPEP § 2106.05(g, f and h).
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)
The “receiving…” and “obtaining…” limitations are mere data gathering, along with similar such recitations (e.g. “in response to at least one user interaction”, “receive the at least one user interaction”, “responsive to the at least one user interaction”).
The rendering step is merely data displaying and specifying what is to be displayed. See “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and”
Should it be found that the “3D” recitations in the presently claimed invention are not part of the abstract idea, then the Examiner notes these would be rejected as generally linking to a particular technological environment (3D instead of 2D); and part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer (as the claim places no restrictions on how these steps are to be performed in a particular technological manner, but are rather purely results-oriented limitations as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
Claim 1 and 21 for “by at least one processor”, and claim 11 preamble
…virtual…digital…simulated… dynamically …structural programming…wherein structural programming comprises a computer programming language…- part of the mere instructions to use a computer, and generic computer components, as a tool to implement the abstract idea/do it in a computer environment
The recitation of “external software function” is also part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer/in a computer environment. See ¶ 7, e.g. add a cash register to the space, but do it in a computer environment.
wherein, upon virtually entering a particular simulated area of the plurality of simulated areas, … wherein the at least one digital object is configured to, upon interaction by a user, cause the at least one external integration to perform the at least one external software function associated with performing the at least one activity; - this is akin to “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)
To clarify, the upon virtually entering is merely “apply it” [apply the abstract idea] at a certain event happening (the virtual entering), with no restriction on how the virtual entering is to be done
To clarify, the external integration being performed is merely “apply it” as well – see ¶ 7, e.g. add a cash register which integrated a payment service, but with no restriction on how this it be done, i.e. its merely specifying the desired result. And the claim does not even recite that, but merely is executing/performing a software function associated with the activity – i.e. mere instructions to do it on a computer
and execute, responsive to the at least one user interaction, the structural programming to dynamically adjust at least one of a size, a position, or shape of at least one of the simulated space or at least one of the plurality of simulated areas while maintaining relative positional relationships according to the plurality of relational mappings. – mere instructions to apply it/do it in a computer environment.
To clarify, The recitations of “structural programming” and associated portions, e.g. “executing” it, and “wherein structural programming comprises a computer programming language”, etc. are nothing more than the mere instruction to do it on a computer in the context of computer programming languages, generally linking to the field of use, and an insignificant computer implementation. E.g. ¶ 101 clarifies that it includes being a “markup language” – see the discussion of XML, which is a markup language (that is the “ML” in its abbreviation, which stands for eXtensible markup language), in MPEP § 2106.05(g, f and h).
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)
The “receiving…” and “obtaining…” limitations are mere data gathering, along with similar such recitations (e.g. “in response to at least one user interaction”, “receive the at least one user interaction”, “responsive to the at least one user interaction”).
The rendering step is merely data displaying and specifying what is to be displayed. See “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and”
Should it be found that the “3D” recitations in the presently claimed invention are not part of the abstract idea, then the Examiner notes these would be rejected as generally linking to a particular technological environment (3D instead of 2D); and part of the mere instructions to do it on a computer (as the claim places no restrictions on how these steps are to be performed in a particular technological manner, but are rather purely results-oriented limitations as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
The “receiving…” and “obtaining…” limitations are mere data gathering, along with similar such recitations (e.g. “in response to at least one user interaction” and “receive the at least one user interaction”) and are WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;… i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”
The rendering step is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as well as example 46, claim 1, for its WURC analysis for its displaying step
……virtual…digital…simulated….wherein the at least one digital object is configured to, upon interaction by a user in the virtual space, cause the at least one external integration to perform the at least one external software function associated with performing the at least one activity;; - this is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)… iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;…” – also see:
Dragan, Dinu, et al. "State of the Art in Virtual Reality Shops." Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mass Customization and Personalization in Central Europe MCP-CE. 2018. Abstract, then see §§ 2-3, include seeing page 77 col. 1, ¶¶ 2-3 and col. 2, ¶¶ 2-3, and page 78, col 1 ¶¶ 2-3 and col. 2 ¶¶ 1-2
Elordi, Unai, et al. "Virtual reality interfaces applied to web-based 3D E-commerce." Engineering Systems Design and Analysis. Vol. 44847. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012. Page 3, col. 1, ¶¶ 1-3
Galketiya, M. K., et al. "Virtual Furniture Shop." 2018 13th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE). IEEE, 2018. Page 452, the bullet points and last two paragraphs
Speicher, Marco, Sebastian Cucerca, and Antonio Krüger. "VRShop: a mobile interactive virtual reality shopping environment combining the benefits of on-and offline shopping." Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1.3 (2017): 1-31. § 1 including the paragraph split between pages 2-3, also see §§ 2.1 and 2.3
Walczak, Krzysztof, Jacek Sokolowski, and Jakub Dziekoński. "Configurable virtual reality store with contextual interaction interface." 2018 11th International conference on human system interaction (HSI). IEEE, 2018. § 1 including page 28 last paragraph, and § II.B on page 30
Macinnes et al., US 2005/0081161 Al, ¶¶ 4-18, including ¶¶ 14-15
Furthermore, the use of hierarchical coordinate systems in 3D modeling, 3D rendering, and the like is a conventionally used abstract idea for these purposes, i.e. there is no inventive concept to be found in the way it is used in these claims.
E.g. Tombers, Paul A. "Teaching Advanced CAD Concepts." International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Vol. 6234. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1991. Page 300, col. 2, ¶¶ 2-4: “One of the most fundamental concepts the advanced CAD student must understand is how to use. the CAD system's coordinate systems to generate a 100% accurate three dimensional model. Most CAD systems capable of generating three dimensional models use two types of coordinate systems, a global coordinate system and a local coordinate system…. The global coordinate system usually is a fixed, right-handed Cartesian coordinate system. For any given point on the model, the point will have a unique x, y, z coordinate that defines its position relative to the origin of the global coordinate system… A local coordinate system is a coordinate system that the CAD student can specifically define to help generate an entity or plane that would be difficult or impossible to define in the global coordinate system. The origin of the local coordinate system can be located anywhere in the global coordinate system and the
axes, x, y, and z, may be turned and tilted in any direction…”
E.g. Rusinkiewicz, “Scene Graphs &Modeling Transformations”, COS 426 Lecture Notes, Spring 2011, URL: www(dot)cs(dot)princeton(dot)edu/courses/archive/spr11/cos426/outline(dot)html – see the figure on slide 7 which shows such a hierarchical coordinate system; slide 8: “Allows definitions of objects in own coordinate systems”; see the figure on slide 14 including the parts annotated “Modeling Coordinates” and “World Coordinates”
E.g. Marschner, “3D Viewing”, CS 4620 Lecture 11 Slides, Cornell University, 2019, URL: www(dot)cs(dot)cornell(dot)edu/courses/cs4620/2019fa/ - see slide 5 which shows the use of hierarchical coordinate systems and the transformations between them as part the “Pipeline” in 3D rendering; see the remaining slides to further clarify, including slide 16 for : “Remember that geometry would originally have been in the object’s local coordinates; transform into world coordinates is called the modeling matrix”
E.g. Buss, “3D Computer Graphics – A mathematical Introduction with OpenGL”, May 2019, URL: www(dot)math(dot)ucsd(dot)edu/~sbuss/CourseWeb/Math155A_2019Winter/SecondEdDraft(dot)pdf – see page 32: “…We start with a vertex position x, usually as a point in 3-space, denoting a position for the vertex in local coordinates. For example, in the Ferris wheel example, to model a single chair of the Ferris wheel it might be the most convenient to model it as being centered at the origin. Vertices are specified relative to a “local coordinate system” for the chair. In this way, the chair can be modeled once without having to consider where the chairs will be placed in the final scene…. The Model matrix M transforms vertex positions x from local coordinates into world coordinates (also called global coordinates). The world coordinates can be viewed as the “real” coordinates. In the Ferris wheel example, multiple chairs are rendered at different positions and orientations on the Ferris wheel, since the chairs go around with the wheel plus they may rock back-and-forth. Each chair will have its own Model matrix M. The Model matrix transforms vertex positions x from local coordinates into global coordinates…” – and see the remaining portions of pages 32-34; then see figure II.1 on page 34.
E.g. Blender 3D Noob to Pro, Chapter: Coordinate Spaces in Blender, last edited on 2 June 2018, URL: en(dot)wikibooks(dot)org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Coordinate_Spaces_in_Blender – see the subsection on “Global and Local Coordinates”: “Blender refers to the coordinate system described above as the global coordinate system, though it's not truly global as each scene has its own global coordinate system. Each global coordinate system has a fixed origin and a fixed orientation, but we can view it from different angles by moving a virtual camera through the scene and/or rotating the camera. Global coordinates are adequate for scenes containing a single fixed object and scenes in which each object is merely a single point in the scene. When dealing with objects that move around (or multiple objects with sizes and shapes), it's helpful to define a local coordinate system for each object, i.e. a coordinate system that can move with, and follow the object. The origin of an object's local coordinate system is often called the center of the object although it needn't coincide with the geometrical center of the object. 3D objects in Blender are largely described using vertices (points in the object, singular form: vertex). The global coordinates of a vertex depend on: the (x, y, z) coordinates of the vertex in the object's local coordinate system the location of the object's center any rotation (turning) of the local coordinates system relative to the global coordinate system, and any scaling (magnification or reduction) of the local coordinate system relative to the global coordinate system.”
As such, the claims are directed towards a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 recites another step in the mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer. In addition, should it be found that the “wherein the plurality of digital objects comprises at least one of: furniture, decorations, fixtures, furnishings, a clothing rack, store shelving, a cash register, or a vending machine” is not part of the abstract idea, then this would be considered as generally linking to a particular field of use
Claim 3 is further limiting the mental process for the “a cash register that integrates at least one payment service into the virtual space” but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, as well as certain methods of organizing human activity (of both “Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles” and “Commercial or Legal Interactions” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), wherein should it be found that this is not part of the abstract idea then this would be generally linking to a particular field of use/technological environment, the recitation of “at least one data analytics model that integrates at least one data analytics service for user behavior tracking into the virtual space” is considered as certain methods of organizing human activity in view of the July 2024 Fed. Register Notice, in particular see the discussion of “Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2022)”, as well as a mental process of mental observations of user behavior, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, and mentally evaluating the observations, e.g. a business owner observing people as they shop for pastries in a bakery, e.g. during the month of November, and evaluating whether the organization of the pastries is effective for the person shopping (e.g. mentally evaluating if the pumpkin pie should be moved to the center of the display, as many people partake in pumpkin pie in the month of November as visually observed), but for the mere instructions to do this on a computer. Should it be found that the data analytics model feature is not part of the abstract idea, then this would be generally linking to a particular technological environment of computers, given the generality recited in this limitation, and that it is merely stating what the digital object may comprise. The recitation of “a mobile chat bot…” feature is considered as a mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, given the high level of generality recited in the present claims, and in view of the July 2024 Fed. Register notice for its discussion of “Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” In addition, should it be found that this mobile chat bot feature is not part of the abstract idea, then this would be generally linking to the technological environment of computers, given the high level of generality recited in this limitation.
Also, the use of chat bots is WURC in view of Trappey, Amy JC, et al. "VR-enabled engineering consultation chatbot for integrated and intelligent manufacturing services." Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26 (2022): 100331. Page 2, col. 1, last two paragraphs: “For better customer service and experience, chatbots have been created and applied to many commercial web applications [16]. Corea [17] proposed the concept of a robot-insurance company, explaining how AI can combine insurance agents, customer services, health assistants, and provide medical advice to create fully automated medical insurance solutions. AI solutions can be used as a driver assistant to help reduce accidents. AI is changing the business models of financial service providers to innovate and seek alternative solutions to old problems, including personalized financial services using chatbots that act as virtual financial advisors [18]. Chatbots are widely applied in e-commerce, the service industries, restaurants, and airline industries yet few manufacturing companies have adopted chatbot applications for collaborative design and testing.”
Also, the use of data analytics models of user behavior tracking is WURC in view of Hernandez, Sergio, et al. "Analysis of users’ behavior in structured e-commerce websites." IEEE Access 5 (2017): 11941-11958. Abstract: “Online shopping is becoming more and more common in our daily lives. Understanding users' interests and behavior is essential to adapt e-commerce websites to customers' requirements. The information about users' behavior is stored in the Web server logs. The analysis of such information has focused on applying data mining techniques, where a rather static characterization is used to model users' behavior, and the sequence of the actions performed by them is not usually considered” – and see §§ I-II
The use of cash registers for providing payment services is considered WURC in view of Boucouvalas, Anthony C., Constantine J. Aivalis, and Kleanthis Gatziolis. "Integrating retail and e-commerce using Web Analytics and intelligent sensors." E-Business and Telecommunications: 12th International Joint Conference, ICETE 2015, Colmar, France, July 20–22, 2015, Revised Selected Papers 12. Springer International Publishing, 2016. § 1 ¶ 2: “Physical stores use multiple techniques in order to analyze client behavior. The majority of these techniques, are based on capturing the data at the cash register, during the checkout process, when the customer is about to”
Claim 4 recites additional steps in the mental process of mental evaluations/judgements, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, wherein the functional limitation of “so as to cause to appear that the at least one digital object provides the at least one external software function” is considered as part of the mere instructions to do this computer on a computer, given the high level of generality recited here, as well as generally linking to the technological environment of computers, as well as mere data displaying as an insignificant extra-solution activity, and WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” as well as Kužnar, Damjan, et al. "Virtual assistant platform." Informatica 40.3 (2016). §§ 1-2
Claim 5 recites another step of the mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, given the high level of generality recited here. Neither the claims nor the disclose even describe what the graphical layers are (¶¶ 9-10, 19-20). To clarify on how this is a mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, a person would readily be able to observe a layout and a coordinate system for a place, e.g. a coffee shop, e.g. by observing a 2D drawing of a layout on paper (or the display of a computer), and by observing the physical coffee shop and mentally visualizing it in 3D, e.g. by a simple coordinate system of height/width/length (to simplify, let’s say the shop is empty, and a cube). The person has mentally judged to add a cash register, or other furniture into the coffee shop, and they have a photograph of the coffee shop (example of a physical view). So the person makes a series of sketches (example of graphical layers), each sketch representing a piece of furniture to go into the coffee shop (on translucent paper), then overlays the sketches on the image of the coffee shop, thus mixing the layers with the physical view.
Also, see the note below for claim 6
Claim 6 recites a mental step, but done in a computer environment, of the determining the view orientation (e.g. a person is readily able to observe the gaze of another person to determine their view, but do it in a computer environment) followed by another mental process step of determining a graphical layer, e.g. a person making an observation and sketching using pen and translucent paper a graphical layer of a sketch representing what they observed, but for the mere instructions to do this on a computer. The positioning step is similarly a mental process, given the high degree of generality recited here, and the rendering step is mere data displaying as an insignificant extra-solution activity recited at a high level of generality that is WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), as well mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1): “Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).”)
WURC as well:
Dou, Hao, and Jiro Tanaka. "A mixed-reality shop system using spatial recognition to provide responsive store layout." International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. See figures 1-3, and § 1 ¶¶ 1-3
Jayananda, P. K. V., et al. "Augmented reality based smart supermarket system with indoor navigation using beacon technology (easy shopping android mobile app)." 2018 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation for Sustainability (ICIAfS). IEEE, 2018. § 1, then see § II including subsections B-C (in particular, the discussion of “Unity” which is a WURC game engine used in AR and VR applications; for relevance see ¶ 52 of the instant disclosure), then see figures 7-9
Sharma, Ojaswa, et al. "Navigation in AR based on digital replicas." The Visual Computer 34 (2018): 925-936. See §§ 1-2, and figures 8-9
Agarwal et al., 11,989,834. Col. 2 and 19-20, and fig. 7
Claim 7 recites a mental process (e.g. observing a person’s location mentally, then using a map of a building and drawing an “X” on the map for where the person was observed to be), but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, as well as certain methods of organizing human activity (see the July 2024 Fed. Register Notice for its discussion of “Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2022)”) but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer.
Claim 8 is considered as certain methods of organizing human activity in view of July 2024 Fed. Register Notice for its discussion of “Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2022)” as well as “Elec. Commc'n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2020)” with mere instructions to do it using generic computer components as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites another step in the mental process, akin to the one recited in claim 1 and rejected under a similar rationale
Claim 10 is generally linking to a particular field of use
Claims 12-19 are rejected under a similar rationale as claims 2-10
As such, the claims are directed towards both a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights