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 .
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
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 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, as drafted, recites a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “each unit cube is associated with a unique spatial address derived from its 3D coordinates … the unique spatial address is configured to enable discrete identification of a specific spatial location within the spherical region … a spatial extent of the spherical region is defined by a radial distance from the reference point … determine the target position by resolving a unique spatial address associated with a destination unit cube”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts (e.g., assigning coordinate-based addresses, identifying a location from an address, computing radial distances, and resolving an address). These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements: “a metaverse platform configured to store a three-dimensional (3D) virtual space environment”, “a controller configured to”, “transition a virtual object from an initial location to a target position within the three-dimensional virtual space”, and “each of the [plurality of] unit cubes has a standardized data capacity to store virtual environment attributes … and geospatial attributes … defining a physical real-world location corresponding to the 3D coordinates of said unit cube”. The additional elements “a metaverse platform” and “a controller” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or generic computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements directed to transitioning the virtual object and storing attributes for each unit cube do nothing more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering, storing, and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the 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 into a practical application, the additional elements “a metaverse platform”, “a processor/controller”, and “computer storage” are generic computer components and instructions used as tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional elements directed to gathering, storing, and outputting the spatial and geospatial data, the courts have identified that gathering data, storing data, and outputting the results of the abstract idea are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claim cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further defines “the reference point is established as a fixed spatial singularity serving as a primary coordinate anchor for the three-dimensional (3D) virtual space” as part of the “reference point” function set forth in the claim from which it depends, and thus is also considered to recite a mental process that can reasonably be carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 3 further defines “the unit cube is an individual fundamental spatial element defining the minimum resolution of the three-dimensional virtual space” as part of the “unit cube” function set forth in the claim from which it depends, and thus is also considered to recite a mental process that can reasonably be carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 4, as drafted, recites a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “the plurality of unit cubes is arranged according to a recursive spatial logic, in which a position and orientation of each successive unit cube is defined by a spatial relationship to at least one previously instantiated unit cube”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts (defining positions and orientations by spatial relationships). These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The courts have identified that gathering data and outputting the results of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claim cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 further defines the spatial address as “a set of coordinate values relative to the reference point within the three-dimensional coordinate system”, which recites a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships and a coordinate representation) and thus falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provides no inventive concept.
Claim 6, as drafted, recites a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “determine relative spatial proximities between a plurality of the virtual objects by performing a comparative analysis of the unique spatial addresses associated with the unit cubes occupied by said virtual objects”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts (comparing addresses and computing relative proximities). These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The courts have identified that gathering data and outputting the results of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claim cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7, as drafted, recites the abstract idea of “generate a plurality of spherical metaverse planets sharing a common coordinate origin at the reference point, each … independently defined by at least one of a distinct radius, a distinct radial stacking range, and a distinct creation condition”, which recites a mathematical concept (defining spheres by radius and range relative to an origin). The remaining additional element “interoperable via shared data stored within the unit cubes” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data storage). See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d), (f). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “process a region located between the plurality of spherical metaverse planets as an informationally managed region” based on “the spatial address assigned to unit cubes corresponding to the region”. The managing/processing of a region by reference to its addresses recites a mental process, while the reliance on stored spatial addresses adds only insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering and management). See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provides no inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 further recites “an air-rights transaction marketplace configured to trade virtual-space usage rights associated with air rights in the real space, based on a spatial structure formed by stacking the unit cubes”. Trading usage rights is a commercial or legal interaction and a fundamental economic practice, and therefore recites an additional abstract idea within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The additional element “an … transaction marketplace” is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a generic computer environment as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provides no inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10, as drafted, recites a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “determine scarcity of the usage rights based on spatial constraints defined by the height limit and the depth limit”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of mental processes (an evaluation/judgment of scarcity). These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The courts have identified that gathering data and outputting the results of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claim cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11, as drafted, recites a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “identify a location of the usage rights to be traded in association with a spatial address of one or more corresponding unit cubes”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of mental processes (identifying a location from an address). These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The courts have identified that gathering data and outputting the results of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claim cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the additional element “the information relating to the real space stored in each unit cube includes information on at least one of location, range, or altitude” which does nothing more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering, storing, and outputting the results of the abstract idea, to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional element recited in the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The courts have identified that gathering data and outputting the results of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claim cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements “stored and processed in a data structure” and “the spatial address assigned to each unit cube … [to] allow deterministic retrieval of spatial position information”. The generic data structure is merely a generic computer component used as a tool to implement the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the storage and retrieval of position information is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(g), (d)). The claim neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14, as drafted, recites a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “restricts or permits movement of the object based on whether the virtual object is located within the height boundary or the depth boundary”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of mental processes (a rule-based determination to permit or restrict movement based on a condition). These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The additional element “the spatial control executed by the controller” is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a generic controller as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provides no inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are
“a metaverse platform configured to store a three-dimensional (3D) virtual space environment”, “a controller configured to … transition a virtual object … and determine the target position by resolving a unique spatial address associated with a destination unit cube”, and “the metaverse platform system … configured to define a finite spatial extent … by a height boundary and a depth boundary” in claim 1,
“the system … configured to determine relative spatial proximities between a plurality of the virtual objects …” in claim 6
“the system … configured to generate a plurality of spherical metaverse planets …” in claim 7
“the system … configured to process a region located between the plurality of spherical metaverse planets …” in claim 8
“an air-rights transaction marketplace configured to trade virtual-space usage rights …” in claim 9
“the air-rights transaction marketplace … configured to determine scarcity of the usage rights …” in claim 10
“the air-rights transaction marketplace … configured to identify a location of the usage rights …” in claim 11
“the spatial address … is stored and processed in a data structure configured to allow deterministic retrieval of spatial position information” in claim 13
“the spatial control executed by the controller restricts or permits movement of the object …” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemann (US 2011/0199376 A1) in view of Reisinger (US 2009/0241036 A1), and further in view of Rohlf (US 2017/0329801 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Salemann (US 2011/0199376 A1) teaches:
A different space linked metaverse platform system, comprising: a metaverse platform configured to store a three-dimensional (3D) virtual space environment, the 3D virtual environment comprising: (Para [0018], the disclosure provides a three dimensional virtual environment (e.g., an environment represented by simulation space 140) in which user-controlled and/or computer logic controlled entities 144 interact with one another) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s voxel-database-backed three-dimensional virtual environment, stored for interactive presentation of user-controlled entities, reads on a metaverse platform configured to store a 3D virtual space environment.
a reference point functioning as a primary spatial origin from which a coordinate system of the three-dimensional (3D) virtual space is derived; and a spherical region comprising an array of unit cubes of uniform dimensions, each unit cube being contiguously disposed within three-dimensional (3D) coordinates relative to the primary spatial origin, (Para [0019], the volumetric storage space 120 can be a space composed of a set of volumetric units, called voxels 122 … each voxel 122 can be thought of as a three dimensional puzzle piece that fits together with other puzzle pieces to form the volumetric storage space 120) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s volumetric storage space composed of uniform voxels that fit contiguously together on a three-dimensional grid teaches an array of unit cubes of uniform dimensions contiguously disposed within 3D coordinates relative to a coordinate origin.
wherein: (1) a spatial extent of the spherical region is defined by a radial distance from the reference point; (Para [0029], Each voxel 122 can be a volume element representing a value on a grid (regular or non-regular) in three dimensional space, specifically volumetric storage space 120) Examiner Comments: Salemann establishes the three-dimensional grid coordinate space whose extent is bounded by the modeled volume; the spherical shape and radius of that volume are taught by Rohlf below.
(2) each unit cube is associated with a unique spatial address derived from its 3D coordinates; and (Para [0022], each voxel 122 can have a unique identifier, which in a database system (e.g., database 130) can be a primary key of a database table having voxel records) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s assignment of a unique identifier (primary key) to each voxel, where the voxel is itself a volume unit on a 3D grid, teaches a unique spatial address derived from the unit cube’s 3D coordinates.
(3) the unique spatial address is configured to enable discrete identification of a specific spatial location within the spherical region; and (Para [0031], the voxel database 130 can be associated with a voxel query engine 167, which permits records 132 to be retrieved based on requestor supplied criteria) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s voxel query engine that retrieves a specific voxel record by supplied criteria teaches that the unique address enables discrete identification of a specific spatial location.
wherein each of the plurality of spatial unit cubes has a standardized data capacity to store virtual environment attributes defining the three-dimensional virtual space and geospatial attributes, the geospatial attributes defining a physical real-world location corresponding to the 3D coordinates of said unit cube. (Para [0007], uniquely defined voxels of a voxel database is the volume unit on a grid in three dimensional space … A one-to-one correspondence can exist between voxels in the voxel space and volume units of a real world volumetric space from which geospatial data was directly gathered and encoded within the voxel database) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s voxel records, each storing visual/semantic attributes and bearing a one-to-one correspondence to a real-world volume unit, teach unit cubes having a standardized data capacity to store virtual-environment attributes and geospatial attributes that define the real-world location corresponding to the unit cube’s 3D coordinates.
Salemann did not specifically teach
the at least one spherical metaverse planet defined by a predetermined radius relative to a reference origin,
a controller configured to transition a virtual object from an initial location to a target position within the three-dimensional virtual space, and determine the target position by resolving a unique spatial address associated with a destination unit cube
wherein the metaverse platform being configured to define a finite spatial extent for the at least one spherical metaverse planet by a height boundary and a depth boundary, each boundary being independently configurable as a radial distance from a surface of the spherical region.
However, Reisinger (US 2009/0241036 A1) teaches:
a controller configured to transition a virtual object from an initial location to a target position within the three-dimensional virtual space; and determine the target position by resolving a unique spatial address associated with a destination unit cube, (Para [0051], it will set the target of its teleport function to “<124,12,45>.” As the avatar interacts in an intended way with a teleport source station object, the avatar will be moved to the target location indicated by the object’s label) Examiner Comments: Reisinger’s teleport function, which resolves the coordinates associated with a destination object and moves the avatar to that target location, teaches a controller that transitions a virtual object to a target position determined by resolving the address of a destination unit cube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reisinger’s coordinate-resolved teleportation with Salemann’s voxel-addressed three-dimensional virtual environment in order to relocate a user-controlled entity directly to any uniquely addressed volume unit without traversing intervening space, thereby providing rapid and deterministic navigation of a large 3D environment. Such a combination is merely the use of a known technique (resolving a destination address to move an object) to improve a similar device (an addressable voxel environment) in the same way and yields predictable results (Reisinger [abstract/Summary]).
Salemann and Reisinger did not specifically teach
the at least one spherical metaverse planet defined by a predetermined radius relative to a reference origin,
wherein the metaverse platform being configured to define a finite spatial extent for the at least one spherical metaverse planet by a height boundary and a depth boundary, each boundary being independently configurable as a radial distance from a surface of the spherical region.
However, Rohlf (US 2017/0329801 A1) teaches:
the at least one spherical metaverse planet defined by a predetermined radius relative to a reference origin (Para [0031], the three-dimensional spatial partitioning of geospatial data associated with a spheroid into a plurality of discrete geospatial volumes along axes defined in a spherical coordinate system relative to the spheroid pursuant to a hierarchical spatial partitioning scheme) Examiner Comments: Rohlf’s spheroid partitioned into discrete geospatial volumes along axes of a spherical coordinate system referenced to the spheroid teaches a spherical region (planet) defined relative to a reference origin, whose extent is expressed as a radial distance in spherical coordinates.
wherein the metaverse platform being configured to define a finite spatial extent for the at least one spherical metaverse planet by a height boundary and a depth boundary, each boundary being independently configurable as a radial distance from a surface of the spherical region (Paras [0078]–[0079], geospatial data is spatially partitioned in three dimensions by additionally partitioning geospatial data along an altitude axis defined in a spherical coordinate system relative to the virtual globe … the altitude coordinates are normalized by the mean radius of the geoid) Examiner Comments: Rohlf’s partitioning along an altitude axis above and below the globe surface, normalized to the mean radius, teaches a height boundary and a depth boundary each configurable as a radial distance from the surface of the spherical region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to organize Salemann’s voxel space as Rohlf’s spheroidal, altitude-partitioned geospatial volume in order to provide a finite, geospatially anchored world whose vertical extent above the surface (sky/air) and below the surface (depth) can be independently bounded relative to the spheroid surface. This is the application of a known spherical spatial-partitioning scheme to a known voxel environment to obtain the predictable result of a bounded spherical world, and combines prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Rohlf further teaches:
wherein the reference point is established as a fixed spatial singularity serving as a primary coordinate anchor for the three-dimensional (3D) virtual space. (Para [0078], an altitude axis defined in a spherical coordinate system relative to the virtual globe) Examiner Comments: Rohlf’s spherical coordinate system referenced to the (fixed) center of the virtual globe teaches a fixed spatial origin serving as the primary coordinate anchor for the 3D virtual space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to organize Salemann’s voxel space as Rohlf’s spheroidal, altitude-partitioned geospatial volume in order to provide a finite, geospatially anchored world whose vertical extent above the surface (sky/air) and below the surface (depth) can be independently bounded relative to the spheroid surface. This is the application of a known spherical spatial-partitioning scheme to a known voxel environment to obtain the predictable result of a bounded spherical world, and combines prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Salemann further teaches:
wherein the unit cube is an individual fundamental spatial element defining the minimum resolution of the three-dimensional virtual space. (Salemann, Para [0029], Each voxel 122 can be a volume element representing a value on a grid (regular or non-regular) in three dimensional space) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s voxel, being the elemental volume element on the 3D grid, teaches a fundamental spatial element defining the minimum resolution of the 3D virtual space.
Regarding Claim 4, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Rohlf further teaches:
wherein the plurality of unit cubes is arranged according to a recursive spatial logic, in which a position and orientation of each successive unit cube is defined by a spatial relationship to at least one previously instantiated unit cube. (Rohlf, Para [0031], a plurality of discrete geospatial volumes along axes defined in a spherical coordinate system relative to the spheroid pursuant to a hierarchical spatial partitioning scheme) Examiner Comments: Rohlf’s hierarchical (recursive) spatial partitioning of the spheroid into discrete volumes teaches arranging the unit cubes by a recursive spatial logic in which each successive volume is defined by its relationship to a parent/previously instantiated volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to organize Salemann’s voxel space as Rohlf’s spheroidal, altitude-partitioned geospatial volume in order to provide a finite, geospatially anchored world whose vertical extent above the surface (sky/air) and below the surface (depth) can be independently bounded relative to the spheroid surface. This is the application of a known spherical spatial-partitioning scheme to a known voxel environment to obtain the predictable result of a bounded spherical world, and combines prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Salemann further teaches:
wherein the spatial address comprises a set of coordinate values relative to the reference point within the three-dimensional coordinate system. (Salemann, Para [0007], the volume unit on a grid in three dimensional space, which is a voxel space) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s identification of each voxel by its position on the three-dimensional grid teaches a spatial address comprising a set of coordinate values relative to the origin of the 3D coordinate system.
Regarding Claim 6, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Salemann further teaches:
wherein the system is configured to determine relative spatial proximities between a plurality of the virtual objects by performing a comparative analysis of the unique spatial addresses associated with the unit cubes occupied by said virtual objects within the three-dimensional virtual space. (Salemann, Para [0031], the voxel database 130 can be associated with a voxel query engine 167, which permits records 132 to be retrieved based on requestor supplied criteria) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s voxel query engine, which retrieves voxel records by spatial criteria, teaches comparing the coordinate-based addresses of the voxels occupied by virtual objects to determine their relative spatial proximities.
Regarding Claim 7, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Rohlf and Salemann further teach:
wherein the system is configured to generate a plurality of spherical metaverse planets sharing a common coordinate origin at the reference point, each of the plurality of spherical virtual planets being independently defined by at least one of a distinct radius, a distinct radial stacking range, and a distinct creation condition, (Rohlf, Para [0031], geospatial data associated with a spheroid into a plurality of discrete geospatial volumes along axes defined in a spherical coordinate system relative to the spheroid) Examiner Comments: Rohlf’s spheroid model defined in a spherical coordinate system, applied repeatedly, teaches generating plural spherical planets each independently defined by its own radius about a common coordinate origin.
and wherein the plurality of spherical virtual planets are interoperable via shared data stored within the unit cubes. (Salemann, Para [0022], each voxel 122 can have a unique identifier, which in a database system (e.g., database 130) can be a primary key of a database table having voxel records) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s common voxel database storing the voxel records for all modeled volumes teaches that plural planets are interoperable through the shared data held in the unit cubes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to organize Salemann’s voxel space as Rohlf’s spheroidal, altitude-partitioned geospatial volume in order to provide a finite, geospatially anchored world whose vertical extent above the surface (sky/air) and below the surface (depth) can be independently bounded relative to the spheroid surface. This is the application of a known spherical spatial-partitioning scheme to a known voxel environment to obtain the predictable result of a bounded spherical world, and combines prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 7.
Salemann further teaches:
wherein the system is configured to process a region located between the plurality of spherical metaverse planets as an informationally managed region based on the spatial address assigned to unit cubes corresponding to the region. (Salemann, Para [0007], uniquely defined voxels of a voxel database is the volume unit on a grid in three dimensional space) Examiner Comments: Because every volume unit on Salemann’s grid — including space between modeled bodies — is a uniquely addressed voxel managed in the database, the region between planets is processed as an informationally managed region keyed to the spatial addresses of its unit cubes.
Regarding Claim 13, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Salemann further teaches:
wherein the spatial address assigned to each unit cube is stored and processed in a data structure configured to allow deterministic retrieval of spatial position information. (Salemann, Para [0022], each voxel 122 can have a unique identifier, which in a database system (e.g., database 130) can be a primary key of a database table having voxel records) Examiner Comments: Salemann’s storage of each voxel’s address as a primary key in a database table teaches a data structure that allows deterministic retrieval of the spatial position information.
Regarding Claim 14, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Rohlf further teaches
wherein the spatial control executed by the controller restricts or permits movement of the object based on whether the virtual object is located within the height boundary or the depth boundary. (Rohlf, Paras [0078]–[0079], geospatial data is spatially partitioned in three dimensions by additionally partitioning geospatial data along an altitude axis defined in a spherical coordinate system relative to the virtual globe) Examiner Comments: Rohlf’s finite partitioning along the altitude axis defines the height and depth boundaries against which Reisinger’s teleport/movement controller permits or restricts movement of the object, such that movement is permitted only to target positions within the bounded volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to organize Salemann’s voxel space as Rohlf’s spheroidal, altitude-partitioned geospatial volume in order to provide a finite, geospatially anchored world whose vertical extent above the surface (sky/air) and below the surface (depth) can be independently bounded relative to the spheroid surface. This is the application of a known spherical spatial-partitioning scheme to a known voxel environment to obtain the predictable result of a bounded spherical world, and combines prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 9-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemann (US 2011/0199376 A1) in view of Reisinger (US 2009/0241036 A1), and Rohlf (US 2017/0329801 A1), further in view of Gilmore (US 10,853,821 B2).
Regarding Claim 9, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf did not specifically teach
wherein the metaverse platform further comprises an air-rights transaction marketplace configured to trade virtual-space usage rights associated with air rights in the real space, based on a spatial structure formed by stacking the unit cubes.
However, Gilmore (US 10,853,821 B2) teaches:
wherein the metaverse platform further comprises an air-rights transaction marketplace configured to trade virtual-space usage rights associated with air rights in the real space, based on a spatial structure formed by stacking the unit cubes. (Claim 1, representing land use rights as bounded spaces, where a whole land use right is embodied as a computer object having a whole bounded space with an interval from a start point to an end point … managing land use rights conveyances through interactions of the computer objects) Examiner Comments: The Gilmore’s management and conveyance of real-property usage rights represented as bounded three-dimensional spaces teaches a marketplace for trading usage rights (including air rights) tied to the stacked, bounded spatial structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Gilmore’s bounded-space land-use-rights conveyance into the geospatially anchored metaverse of Salemann and Rohlf in order to trade the real-world air-rights that correspond to the addressed unit cubes, predictably extending the platform’s economy to real-property rights anchored to the unit cubes’ geospatial attributes (Gilmore [abstract/Summary]).
Regarding Claim 10, Salemann, Reisinger, Rohlf, and Gilmore teach
the system of Claim 9.
Gilmore further teaches:
wherein the air-rights transaction marketplace is configured to determine scarcity of the usage rights based on spatial constraints defined by the height limit and the depth limit. (Claim 7, computing a subdivision conveyed based on right type intervals, x-axis tract dimension intervals, y-axis tract dimension intervals, z-axis land depth intervals, mineral type intervals, and time intervals) Examiner Comments: The Gilmore’s computation of conveyed subdivisions bounded by z-axis (vertical depth/height) intervals teaches determining the available (scarce) usage rights as constrained by the height and depth limits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Gilmore’s bounded-space land-use-rights conveyance into the geospatially anchored metaverse of Salemann and Rohlf in order to trade the real-world air-rights that correspond to the addressed unit cubes, predictably extending the platform’s economy to real-property rights anchored to the unit cubes’ geospatial attributes (Gilmore [abstract/Summary]).
Regarding Claim 11, Salemann, Reisinger, Rohlf, and Gilmore teach
the system of Claim 9.
Gilmore further teaches:
wherein the air-rights transaction marketplace is configured to identify a location of the usage rights to be traded in association with a spatial address of one or more corresponding unit cubes. (Claim 5, tracking conveyances based on a combination of at least two of: right type, x-axis and y-axis tract dimensions, z-axis land depth, mineral type, and time) Examiner Comments: The Gilmore’s tracking of each conveyance by its x-, y-, and z-axis tract dimensions teaches identifying the location of the traded usage rights by the spatial address of the corresponding unit cube(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Gilmore’s bounded-space land-use-rights conveyance into the geospatially anchored metaverse of Salemann and Rohlf in order to trade the real-world air-rights that correspond to the addressed unit cubes, predictably extending the platform’s economy to real-property rights anchored to the unit cubes’ geospatial attributes (Gilmore [abstract/Summary]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemann (US 2011/0199376 A1) in view of Reisinger (US 2009/0241036 A1), and Rohlf (US 2017/0329801 A1), further in view of Padilla (US 2021/0200793 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf teach
the system of Claim 1.
Salemann, Reisinger, and Rohlf did not specifically recite
wherein the information relating to the real space stored in each unit cube includes information on at least one of location, range, or altitude.
However, Padilla (US 2021/0200793 A1) teaches:
wherein the information relating to the real space stored in each unit cube includes information on at least one of location, range, or altitude. (Para [0024], the present invention further comprises additional information related to the name and coordinate data, such as altitude, stored in a machine readable format) Examiner Comments: Padilla’s storage of coordinate and altitude information for an addressed real-world location teaches that the real-space information stored per unit cube includes at least one of location and altitude.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store Padilla’s location/altitude attributes within Salemann’s per-voxel records in order to deterministically associate each addressed unit cube with its real-world location, range, and altitude, a predictable combination of known data-storage techniques.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SOLTANZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-3451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am - 5pm 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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/AMIR SOLTANZADEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights