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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 (e.g., unit) 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 content acquisition unit configured to acquire information…..; a content management unit configured to determine….. (claim 8); the content acquisition unit is configured to set property information….. (claim 10); the content management unit is configured to dynamically determine…. (claim 12); the content management unit is configured to determine a reward….. (claim 13).
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 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 § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention:
Independent claims 1 and 8, initially the preamble recites “a metaverse platform”. However, the steps/limitations 1-2 then recites “at least one metaverse platform/the at least one metaverse platform”. The scope of these limitations is confusing since it is unclear whether “at least one metaverse platform/the at least one metaverse platform” in steps/limitations 1-2 is referring back to “a metaverse platform” in the preamble? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes that “at least one metaverse platform/the at least one metaverse platform” in steps/limitations 1-2 is referring back to “a metaverse platform” in the preamble. Appropriated correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for the same reason as indicated in the independent claims 1 and 8.
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.
7. The claimed invention (Claims 1-13) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes”, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
8. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claim 1-6: Yes. These are methods, and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claim 7: Yes. Claim 7 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium……, which is interpreted as a system…., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine.
Claims 8-13: Yes. The corresponding structure for a content acquisition unit and a content management unit implemented in the device or a server (Applicant’s specification fig. 2 on pages 7-8), which is directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
9. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 19 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes”:
Limitations 1-2 of acquire information on a content for an advertisement (limitation 1); and determine execution of the content for the advertisement with reference to a user interaction (limitation 2) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (include subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Further, the limitation 2 mentioned above of “determine execution of the content for the advertisement with reference to a user interaction” also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing user interaction in order to determine execution of the content for the advertisement with reference to a user interaction.
Independent claim 8, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (i.e., a content acquisition unit; a content management unit; a metaverse platform….) to perform abstract steps/limitations 1-2 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are -recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component(s) (i.e., a content acquisition unit; a content management unit; a metaverse platform……); thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 8, the limitation 1 of “a content acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a content for an advertisement linked to at least one metaverse platform” is merely receiving data/ gathering data, which is considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, in claim 8, the additional element of “metaverse platform” is also recited as a general link to technological environment; thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) above does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components (i.e., a content acquisition unit; a content management unit; a metaverse platform……) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 8 (step 2B): The additional element in claim 8 (i.e., a content acquisition unit; a content management unit; a metaverse platform…….) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the additional elements “i.e., a content acquisition unit; a content management unit; a metaverse platform……” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1-2 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 8, the limitation 1 of “a content acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a content for an advertisement linked to at least one metaverse platform” is merely receiving data/ gathering data, which is considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, in claim 8, the additional element of “metaverse platform” is also recited as a general link to technological environment; thus, is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When revaluating the limitations 1 mentioned above of “a content acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a content for an advertisement linked to at least one metaverse platform” in step 2B here; receiving data/gathering data is also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to store information, transmit/display information/data and receive/gather information/data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per claims 1 and 7 : Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 1, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim 7 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 8. The underlined components (i.e., a metaverse platform/at least one metaverse platform; a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program….) described in claim 1 and/or claim 7 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. They are merely using as tools to implement the identified abstract idea and/or are general link to technological environment; and/or insignificant extra solution activities. Thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 8 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that in dependent claims 2 and 9, the additional element of “a user interface (UI)” is merely recited as tools to implement the identified abstract idea and/or is recited as a general link to technological environment; thus, it does not integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application and does not provide inventive concept (not significantly more). Therefore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pulido et al; (US 2020/0202389 A1):
12. Claims 1, 7 and 8: Pulido teaches a method and system for supporting advertisement linked to a metaverse platform {e.g., virtual environment in para 0007, fig. 13 paras 0058-0062, fig. 8 paras 0036-0040, fig. 11 paras 0049-0052, fig. 15 paras 0067-0068}, the method and system comprising the steps of:
acquiring information on a content (e.g., image in para 0007, 0034, 0061; product associated with keywords in paras 0025, 0026-0028, 0033, 0037-0038) for an advertisement linked to at least one metaverse platform (e.g., virtual environment in para 0007, fig. 13 paras 0058- 0062) {At least paras 0007, 0025-0028, 0033-0034, 0037-0038, fig. 13 paras 0058-0062 especially para 0061. Also see fig. 15 paras 0067-0068 in context with fig. 11 paras 0049-0052}; and
determining execution of the content for the advertisement with reference to a user interaction (e.g., user’s position within the virtual environment such as user’s field of view in para 0059-0061; user’s speech in paras 0025-0029, 0033-0034) in the at least one metaverse platform (e.g., virtual environment in para 0007, 0025-0029, fig. 13 paras 0058-0062, fig. 8 paras 0036-0040, fig. 11 paras 0049-0052, fig. 15 paras 0067-0068) {At least paras 0007, 0025-0029, 0033-0034, fig. 13 paras 0058-0062 especially paras 0059-0061. Also see fig. 8 paras 0036-0040 in context with fig. 11 paras 0049-0052 and fig. 15 paras 0067-0068}.
13. Claims 2 and 9: Pulido teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1 and 8 respectively. Pulido further teaches wherein in the acquiring step, a user interface (UI) {At least fig. 5 para 0029, fig. 8 paras 0037-0038, see API} or user experience (UX) {At least paras, 0027, 0030, 0038, 0065} for supporting creation of the content for the advertisement is provided {At least fig. 5 para 0029, fig. 8 paras 0037-0038 in context with paras 0027, 0030, 0065}.
14. Claims 3 and 10: Pulido teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1 and 8 respectively. Pulido further teaches wherein in the acquiring step, property information of the content for the advertisement associated with an execution condition of the content is set {At least fig. 13 especially paras 0059-0061. Also see fig. 1 para 0025}.
15. Claims 4 and 11: Pulido teaches the claimed invention as in claims 3 and 10 respectively. Pulido further teaches wherein in the acquiring step, the property information of the content is set on the basis of at least one of a property panel {At least fig. 13 especially paras 0059-0061, see content such as image for advertisement is executed based on the user position e.g., the user’s field of view within the virtual environment}, text coding {At least fig. 1 para 0025}, and block coding.
16. Claims 5 and 12: Pulido teaches the claimed invention as in claims 3 and 10 respectively. Pulido further wherein in the determining step, the execution of the content for the advertisement is dynamically determined in response to the user interaction matching at least a part of the set property information of the content {At least fig. 13 especially paras 0059-0061: see e.g., content such as image for advertisement is executed based on the user position e.g., the user’s field of view within the virtual environment. Also see fig. 1 para 0025, fig. 2 para 0026}.
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.
17. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulido et al; (US 2020/0202389 A1), in view of Landers; (US 2023/0334534 A1):
18. Claims 6 and 13: Pulido teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1 and 8 respectively. Pulido does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “determining a reward for the execution of the content for the advertisement.”
Landers teaches determining a reward for an execution of a content for an advertisement {At least para 0049 in context with paras 0082, 0136}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify “determining execution of the content for the advertisement with reference to a user interaction in the at least one metaverse platform” of Pulido to include “determining a reward for an execution of a content for an advertisement”, taught by Landers. On would be motivated to do this in order to enable financially rewarding e.g., content creators {Landers: at least para 0002 in context with para 0082}, which increase the content creators/users’ satisfaction and experience.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Canney et al; (US 20240177196 A1), wherein teaches Systems are disclosed for determining contextual segments for targeting contextual advertising in metaverses. The system can deploy an observer avatar in a metaverse to capture information inside a portion of a metaverse from behaviors and interactions of a target user avatar. The observer avatar can capture audio, video, images, and text perceived by the observer avatar in the area of the user avatar, along with metadata describing the captured information. Using the captured observations, the system can determine contextual segments classifying the portion of the metaverse. Using a library of the contextual segments, advertisers can distribute contextually targeted advertisements.
HOTTA; (US 2023/0343020 A1), wherein teaches An advertisement display system 1 acquires coordinates of the avatar and a size of the avatar in the virtual reality space and calculates a movement speed of the avatar by dividing a coordinate change amount per unit time of the avatar in the virtual reality space by a reference amount in accordance with the size of the avatar. In addition, the system 1 determines whether a point of view of the avatar in the virtual reality space is set to a first-person point of view or a third-person point of view. Furthermore, the system 1 performs control to differentiate, when an avatar is moving in the virtual reality space, a position where advertising is to be displayed in the virtual reality space with respect to the user operating the avatar in accordance with the movement speed of the avatar and the point of view of the avatar.
NAKAMURA et al; (US 2024/0087002 A1), wherein teaches A server device (10) includes: a construction unit (132) configured to construct a virtual shopping mall including virtual stores from which a user is able to browse and purchase products in a virtual space and to provide the constructed virtual shopping mall to a user terminal used by the user; and an optimization unit (134) configured to change at least one of virtual stores which are arranged in the virtual shopping mall, advertisements which are arranged in the virtual shopping mall, products which are arranged in the virtual stores, and advertisements which are arranged in the virtual stores for each user according to user information of users entering the virtual shopping mall.
Goyal et al; (US 2022/0036657 A1), wherein teaches Insertion of supplemental content into a virtual environment is automated using a machine learning model. The machine learning model is trained to calculate a confidence value that a candidate virtual object fits into a virtual environment based on an input that includes a candidate virtual object, a list of persistent virtual objects, and a list of temporary virtual objects. The machine learning model is trained using the persistent and temporary objects displayed in the current virtual environment until it predicts that a selected virtual object fits into the current virtual environment. The trained machine learning model is then used to select a virtual object comprising supplemental content to be inserted as a new virtual object in the virtual environment.
Further, see additional references cited in PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
