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
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 7/22/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1, 4-15 are pending in the application.
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: control device that/configured to, storage device is configured to, of claim 15.
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 – i.e. the claimed computing elements noted above represent generic computing elements.
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 § 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, 4-15 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 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: holding space configuration information indicating a configuration of a space / an area setting procedure of, when receiving an input of information on setting a partial space in the space, holding the information on setting the partial space as area setting information / an input policy of , when receiving an input of information on a policy executed in the partial space, holding the information on the policy as policy information / an output information management procedure of, generating information to be output to a user and holding the information as policy display pattern information based on the policy in the partial space / a policy procedure of, evaluating the policy based on an action of the user/ sets a plurality of partial spaces/ stores, as the policy information, information on a plurality of policies executed in the plurality of partial spaces/ the policy executed in each of the plurality of partial spaces is a comparison test of outputting a plurality of presentation items in the partial spaces / generates the information to be output to the user of the space such that any of the plurality of presentation items is output to each of a plurality of users of the space in each of the partial spaces / evaluates presence and absence of an interaction among the plurality of policies / generates, when evaluating that there is an interaction among the plurality of policies, information to be output to each of the plurality of users of the space to cancel the interaction for each of the plurality of policies.
Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “The activities performed by the space utilization user 103 in the virtual space 100 can be any activities and are not limited to a specific one, and for example, the activities may be merely passing while viewing a landscape or an event in the virtual space 100, may be purchasing a product or a service sold in a store or the like in the virtual space 100, or may be interacting with another space utilization user 103 in the virtual space 100.”, “The policy input user 102 is a user who takes various policies using the open area. The policy to be taken is not limited to a specific one, and is, for example, a policy in which a product, an advertisement, or the like is disposed in the open area and a reaction of the space utilization user thereto is tested. For example, a so- called AB test may be performed in which products or the like having different designs are arranged and reactions thereto are compared.“, “Note that the policy evaluation unit 24 may give a predetermined point (for example, a coupon or the like that can be used to purchase a product or the like) to the space utilization user 103 whose action log is determined to correspond to the number of people aggregation condition 715 of each policy. Accordingly, it is possible to increase the number of participants in the policy.“, “Then, for each of the patterns "A" and "B", a ratio of users who have accessed the link to the URL displayed together with the image among the space utilization users 103 on whose screen the image is displayed is calculated as an evaluation index, and the ratios for both are compared. For example, when the displayed image is an advertisement of a product or the like, it is possible to measure an effect, such as which advertisement pattern has a larger influence on the user.“
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer system including a control device that executes predetermined processing and a storage device accessible by the control device / performing processing and displaying data within a virtual space . The system /devices represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Performing the processing and displaying content within a virtual space does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the processing and displaying content within a virtual space does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a system for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; it recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claim 15 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 4-14 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of claim 1. The claims further recite the additional elements of two-dimensional and three-dimensional spaces and displaying content in the spaces, which does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1, 4-15.
Hwang (20220222379) teaches holding virtual space configuration data indicating a configuration of a virtual space / when receiving an input of data on setting a partial space in the virtual space, holding the data on setting the partial space in the storage device as area setting data / when receiving an input of data on a policy executed in the partial space, holding the data on the policy in the storage device as policy data / generating output data to a user of the virtual space and holding the data in the storage device as policy display pattern data based on the policy in the virtual space / evaluating the policy based on an action of the user of the virtual space in the virtual space. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/15.
Fukuda (20090172089) teaches a virtual space including a plurality of islands, location of the islands is mapped in two dimensions, preferably using multidimensional scaling such as Kruskal method, to keep the order of the distances between the feature vector including the information of profile and preference of the user and the feature vectors including the profiles and event information of the respective islands. The map server uses the mapping information to provide the user with the islands arranged in a manner more conforming to the user's feature vector, which allows the user to conveniently visit the islands suited to the user's preference, and hence, increases utilization of the virtual space. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/15.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. 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 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
8/12/2026
Prosecution Insights