DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Note that the newly added Rathod (Publication Number 20220179665) reference claims priority to the equivalent WIPO publication WO2018104834A1, which is relied on in the instant rejections. However, that WIPO publication was too large to upload using the UPSTO tools and therefore was not mailed with this action (see also PTO-892 which states that this reference is not being furnished).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method comprising: receiving, from a first client device, a request to register a given ranker on a ranker registry in association with a specified set of coordinates corresponding to a first position on a geospatial map of Earth, the given ranker being stored on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates; determining whether a rate of ranker registration requests from the first client device exceeds a rate limitation; determining, based on zone data associated with the specified set of coordinates and based on whether the rate exceeds the rate limitation, whether a first user has permission to register the given ranker on the ranker registry, the zone data identifying one or more permissions for registering rankers with respect to one or more geo-partitions of a real-world environment; and based on the determining of whether the first user has permission, registering the given ranker on the ranker registry, the given ranker as registered on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates being applied to filter a set of augmented reality objects for surfacing on a second client device, each augmented reality object of the set of augmented reality objects comprising model data for one or more three-dimensional models for rendering and displaying the augmented reality object on the second client device”.
The limitations of “A method comprising: limitation, whether a first user has permission to register the given ranker on the ranker registry, the zone data identifying one or more permissions for registering rankers with respect to one or more geo-partitions of a real-world environment; and based on the determining of whether the first user has permission, registering the given ranker on the ranker registry, the given ranker as registered on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates being applied to filter a set of augmented reality objects for surfacing on
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a first client device” and “a second client device” to perform the claimed steps. The “first client device” and “second client device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a first client device” and “a second client device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, from
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a first client device” and “a second client device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, from process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the rate limitation defines a predetermined number of ranker registration requests permitted within a time period”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the given ranker is configured to filter the set of augmented reality objects based on bidding data that describes a set of priorities for the set of augmented reality objects”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 3, wherein the bidding data is provided by a bidding system that facilitates user bidding on priorities of augmented reality objects”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the given ranker is configured to filter the set of augmented reality objects based on at least one of a set of dates or a set of times”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the registering of the given ranker comprises a public user registering the given ranker”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the given ranker is registered in connection with at least one of a client device attribute or a client application attribute”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a first client device, a request to register a given ranker on a ranker registry in association with a specified set of coordinates corresponding to a first position on a geospatial map of Earth, the given ranker being stored on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates; determining whether a rate of ranker registration requests from the first client device exceeds a rate limitation; determining, based on zone data associated with the specified set of coordinates and based on whether the rate exceeds the rate limitation, whether a first user has permission to register the given ranker on the ranker registry, the zone data identifying one or more permissions for registering rankers with respect to one or more geo-partitions of a real-world environment; and based on the determining of whether the first user has permission, registering the given ranker on the ranker registry, the given ranker as registered on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates being applied to filter a set of augmented reality objects for surfacing on a second client device, each augmented reality object of the set of augmented reality objects comprising model data for one or more three-dimensional models for rendering and displaying the augmented reality object on the second client device”.
The limitations of “augmented reality objects for surfacing on
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “one or more computer processors”, “a first client device” and “a second client device” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “one or more computer processors”, “first client device” and “second client device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “one or more computer processors”, “a first client device” and “a second client device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, from
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “one or more computer processors”, “a first client device” and “a second client device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, from additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more machine-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a first client device, a request to register a given ranker on a ranker registry in association with a specified set of coordinates corresponding to a first position on a geospatial map of Earth, the given ranker being stored on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates; determining whether a rate of ranker registration requests from the first client device exceeds a rate limitation; determining, based on zone data associated with the specified set of coordinates and based on whether the rate exceeds the rate limitation, whether a first user has permission to register the given ranker on the ranker registry, the zone data identifying one or more permissions for registering rankers with respect to one or more geo-partitions of a real-world environment; and based on the determining of whether the first user has permission, registering the given ranker on the ranker registry, the given ranker as registered on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates being applied to filter a set of augmented reality objects for surfacing on a second client device, each augmented reality object of the set of augmented reality objects comprising model data for one or more three-dimensional models for rendering and displaying the augmented reality object on the second client device”.
The limitations of “association with the specified set of coordinates being applied to filter a set of augmented reality objects for surfacing on
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more machine-readable mediums”, “a first client device”, and “a second client device” to perform the claimed steps. The “system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more machine-readable mediums”, “first client device”, and “second client device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more machine-readable mediums”, “a first client device”, and “a second client device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, from
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more machine-readable mediums”, “a first client device”, and “a second client device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving, from primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “15, wherein the registering of the given ranker comprises a public user registering the given ranker”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The system of claim 15, wherein the given ranker is registered in connection with at least one of a client device attribute or a client application attribute”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements 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 is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (Publication Number 20160335289) in view of LAXMINARAYANA BHAT et al. (‘LAXMINARAYANA BHAT’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20140254934) and further in view of Gibson (Patent Number 8681630) and further in view of Rathod (‘Rathod2’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220179665).
As per claim 1, Andrews teaches
A method comprising: (see abstract and background)
receiving, from a first client device, a request to register stores real-world maps and augmented-reality system registration of rights in virtual reality with respect to these maps, see paragraphs [0034]-[0037],[0042])
determining, based on zone data associated with the specified set of coordinates
and based on the determining of whether the first user has permission, registering environment viewable by ordinary users, paragraph [0047]; client devices, paragraph [0032]).
Andrews does not explicitly indicate “a given ranker on a ranker”, “ranker”, “the given ranker on the ranker”, “rankers”, “the given ranker on the ranker”, “the given ranker
However, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT discloses “a given ranker on a ranker”, “ranker”, “the given ranker on the ranker”, “rankers”, “the given ranker on the ranker”, “the given rankerAndrews teaches client devices as shown previously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews and LAXMINARAYANA BHAT because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing an augmented reality platform on mobile devices based on image recognition process (see LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more easily and conveniently interact with objects using their hand-held devices.
Neither Andrews nor LAXMINARAYANA BHAT explicitly indicates “determining whether a rate of
However, Gibson discloses “determining whether a rate of
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT and Gibson because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by to ensure that servers are not overwhelmed by too many requests (see Gibson, column 1, lines 20-43). This gives the user the advantage of being ensured that requests are properly addressed without failure due to an overwhelmed server.
Neither Andrews, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT and Gibson explicitly indicate “the given ranker being stored on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates”, “as registered on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates being applied to filter a set of augmented reality objects”.
However, Rathod2 discloses “the given ranker being stored on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates” (registering for listing and details or making available for searching augmented reality applications one or more objects, paragraphs [0022]&[0087]), “as registered on the ranker registry in association with the specified set of coordinates being applied to filter a set of augmented reality objects” (natural language query to filter location points in augmented reality applications, paragraphs [0022]&[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, Gibson and Rathod2 because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing participants, based on location or place, to share an augmented reality photo or video (see Rathod2, paragraphs [0020]-[0021]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more quickly and easily participate in social media interactions.
As per claim 2,
Neither Andrews nor LAXMINARAYANA BHAT explicitly indicates “the rate limitation defines a predetermined number of ranker registration requests permitted within a time period”.
However, Gibson discloses “the rate limitation defines a predetermined number of ranker registration requests permitted within a time period” (number of requests allowed for a period, column 5, lines 34-38; where LAXMINARAYANA BHAT and Andrews teach ranker and registration, respectively, as shown previously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT and Gibson because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by to ensure that servers are not overwhelmed by too many requests (see Gibson, column 1, lines 20-43). This gives the user the advantage of being ensured that requests are properly addressed without failure due to an overwhelmed server.
As per claim 5,
Andrews does not explicitly indicate “the given ranker is configured to filter the set of augmented reality objects based on at least one of a set of dates or a set of times”.
However, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT discloses “the given ranker is configured to filter the set of augmented reality objects based on at least one of a set of dates or a set of times” (time, paragraph [0053],[0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews and LAXMINARAYANA BHAT because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing an augmented reality platform on mobile devices based on image recognition process (see LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more easily and conveniently interact with objects using their hand-held devices.
As per claim 6, Andrews teaches
the registering of the given ranker comprises a public user registering
Andrews does not explicitly indicate “the given ranker”.
However, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT discloses “the given ranker” (filter and expand the search results of augmented reality, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews and LAXMINARAYANA BHAT because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing an augmented reality platform on mobile devices based on image recognition process (see LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more easily and conveniently interact with objects using their hand-held devices.
As per claim 7, Andrews teaches
Andrews does not explicitly indicate “the given ranker”.
However, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT discloses “the given ranker” (filter and expand the search results of augmented reality, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews and LAXMINARAYANA BHAT because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing an augmented reality platform on mobile devices based on image recognition process (see LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to more easily and conveniently interact with objects using their hand-held devices.
As per claims 8-9 and 12-14,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-2 and 5-7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
As per claims 15-16 and 18-20,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-2 and 5-7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (Publication Number 20160335289) in view of LAXMINARAYANA BHAT et al. (‘LAXMINARAYANA BHAT’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20140254934) and further in view of Gibson (Patent Number 8681630) and further in view of Rathod (‘Rathod2’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220179665) and further in view of Rathod (Publication Number 20180350144).
As per claim 3,
Neither Andrews, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, Gibson nor Rathod2 explicitly indicates “the given ranker is configured to filter the set of augmented reality objects based on bidding data that describes a set of priorities for the set of augmented reality objects”.
However, Rathod discloses “the given ranker is configured to filter the set of augmented reality objects based on bidding data that describes a set of priorities for the set of augmented reality objects” (paragraph [0249]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, Gibson, Rathod2 and Rathod because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a way to monetize an augmented reality system and create a marketplace for commerce. This gives the user the advantage of being able to see desired commercial products in augmented reality.
As per claim 4,
Neither Andrews, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, Gibson nor Rathod2 explicitly indicates “the bidding data is provided by a bidding system that facilitates user bidding on priorities of augmented reality objects”.
However, Rathod discloses “the bidding data is provided by a bidding system that facilitates user bidding on priorities of augmented reality objects” (paragraph [0249]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Andrews, LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, Gibson, Rathod2 and Rathod because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a way to monetize an augmented reality system and create a marketplace for commerce. This gives the user the advantage of being able to see desired commercial products in augmented reality.
As per claims 10-11,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 3-4 and are similarly rejected.
As per claim 17,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, applicant argues that the technical operation of claim 1, 8, and 15 of "determining whether a rate of ranker registration requests from the first client device exceeds a rate limitation” cannot be performed in the human mind because the “[d]etermining whether a rate of registration requests received from a client device exceeds a rate limitation is a network-traffic-management operation that presupposes an incoming stream of machine-to-machine requests transmitted over a network and monitored over time” and “human mind is not equipped to receive network requests transmitted from a remote client device, to track the rate at which such requests arrive, or to evaluate that rate against a defined limitation” as explained in the specification @ paragraph [0066] (see applicant arguments, page 8). However, the applicant appears to be impermissibly importing language from the specification into the claims, but the limitation itself is only making a determination whether a rate of requests exceeds a limitation. The client device is an additional element (of a generic computer component) and not an abstract idea, and the limitation does not disclose anything more than a simple determination step and certainly nothing about any stream of machine-to-machine requests or any type of transmission operation. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
Applicant further argues that “coordinate-associated registered ranker to filter a set of augmented reality objects (where each comprises model data for one or more three-dimensional models for rendering and displaying on a remote second client device) cannot be performed in the human mind” because “human mind cannot store a ranker on a ranker registry in association with geospatial coordinates, cannot apply such a registered ranker to filter a set of augmented reality objects, and cannot render or cause to be rendered three-dimensional model data for display on a remote client device” (see applicant arguments, page 8). However, a human with the aid of a pen and paper can associate a ranker with geospatial coordinate by simply writing down such an association. In addition, a human could similarly apply a ranker to filter objects as claimed, since the claims are specific about what such filtering would entail that could not be performed in a human mind. With respect to the argument that a human “cannot render or cause to be rendered”, it is noted that the claim language says that the objected comprising model data for one or more three-dimensional models is “for rendering and displaying” (emphasis added) on a second client device. This language does perform any actual rendering/displaying but is simply an intended use of that model with no specifics present. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that the limitations of "determining, based on zone data associated with the specified set of coordinates and based on whether the rate exceeds the rate limitation, whether a first user has permission to register the given ranker on the ranker registry, the zone data identifying one or more permissions for registering rankers with respect to one or more geo-partitions of a real-world environment" cannot be performed in the human mind because the specification describes that such zone data "facilitates geo-partitioning of a large real-world environment (e.g., the Earth)" and “is stored as geospatial vector data associated with marked areas of the real-world environment” and that the “human mind is not equipped to evaluate permissions defined by geospatially-partitioned zone data of the Earth in the manner claimed” (see applicant arguments, pages 8-9). However, as answered previously, the applicant is impermissibly importing language from the specification that is not present in the claim language. The human mind can perform the determination step by reviewing permissions to see if a user has such permission for registering, and a human mind can certainly understand what the geo-partition of a real-world environment is. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant argues that the Prong Two analysis addresses only "a first client device" and "a second client device" and the "receiving" step, and does not address the amended claims' geospatially-partitioned zone-data permissioning, the rate-limitation determination, or the coordinate-associated ranker registration governing which three-dimensional augmented reality objects are surfaced on the second client device, and that these “limitations are considered as a while they integrate any alleged exception into a practical application” (applicant arguments, page 10). The applicant outlines where “the Specification of the current patent application describes specific improvements (some of which are listed below) to augmented reality technology that the amended independent claims reflect” and further argues that the “amended claims accordingly reflect these improvements through specific technical features that go beyond merely linking the use of an alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and provide a technological solution to a technological problem” (applicant arguments, pages 10-11). However, Step 2A, Prong Two, requires identifying whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The rejections of record identify various additional elements but the applicant makes no mention of these additional elements nor how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant does seem to discuss the consideration described in MPEP 2106.04(d) regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer, but without any mention of any additional element or how they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the requirements for Step 2A, Prong Two, have not been met. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted that the newly added Rathod2 reference, in combination with previously cited references, teaches the amended claims as shown above.
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 JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights