CTFR 19/090,630 CTFR 82649 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s claims remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As previously noted in the most recent office action, and reiterated below, Applicant’s claimed invention does not improve a technological process, therefore it cannot be said that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This is the reason that any reference to Ex Parte Hannun would not be a relevant decision an analysis of the instant application. Applicant argues,” … the claims are nonetheless amended, in attempt to expedite, to further clearly meet the simple criteria of MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)5 (at least as even further clarified in principle by the now-precedential Ex Parte Desjardins which is therefore binding on the Examiner over this application) at least as explained above.” Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not meet the criteria described in Ex Parte Desjardins. Again, Applicant’s claims do not appear to provide a technological improvement. The Examiner notes that in this reply, Applicant has not even pointed out what the supposed improvement is. Applicant has not provided any argument or analysis regarding what portions of the claimed invention provides the supposed improvement and why. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-11, 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1 The claims recite: generate circulation recording information, including transportation means between imaging points of respective images, estimated based on a distance, between the imaging points of the respective images, and a difference between imaging dates and times of the respective images; acquire information regarding a recommended point determined based on circulation recording information including a plurality of images captured at each point by a first user and generated based on an imaging order, the circulation recording information being information in which each of the imaging points of the respective images is associated with a corresponding point on a three-dimensional virtual space, and position information of a second user, the respective images being of the plurality of images and display a recommendation to move to the recommended point on a screen displayed from a viewpoint of the second user . controlling a movement of the second user, the movement of the second user within the being based on an input operation from the second user The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (a) mathematical concepts-** mathematical relationships mathematical formulas or equations mathematical calculations ** (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)** and (c) mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind- (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “memory, processor terminal, images, three-dimensional virtual space, screen, and based on controlling the screen to display the three-dimensional virtual space and controlling a movement of an avatar of the second user within the three-dimensional virtual space, the movement of the avatar of the second user within the three-dimensional virtual space being based on an input operation from the second user to move the avatar in the three- dimensional virtual space”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being social activities and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2 The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, memory, processor terminal, images, three-dimensional virtual space, screen; and based on controlling the screen to display the three-dimensional virtual space and controlling a movement of an avatar of the second user within the three-dimensional virtual space, the movement of the avatar of the second user within the three-dimensional virtual space being based on an input operation from the second user to move the avatar in the three- dimensional virtual space. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f); - (memory, processor terminal, images, screen) iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(three-dimensional virtual space; based on controlling the screen to display the three-dimensional virtual space and controlling a movement of an avatar of the second user within the three-dimensional virtual space, the movement of the avatar of the second user within the three-dimensional virtual space being based on an input operation from the second user to move the avatar in the three- dimensional virtual space) The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106 Step 2B Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception Dependent Claims Step 2A: The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A — Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claim 2 describes a screen, processor, 3-processor; 4-images, processor; 5-processor; 6-processor, 7-screen; 8-processor; 9-processor; 10-processor, screen; 11-processor, augmented reality space; 13-images, three-dimensional virtual space; 15-processor; 16-processor, three-dimensional virtual space; 18-images, screen; 19-screen, three-dimensional virtual space, but these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies. Dependent Claims Step 2B: The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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. /TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/090,630 Page 2 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/090,630 Page 3 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/090,630 Page 4 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/090,630 Page 5 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/090,630 Page 6 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/090,630 Page 7 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/090,630 Page 8 Art Unit: 3628
Prosecution Insights