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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed invention filed on August 8, 2025, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on August 08, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogale US 9852542 B1 in view of McIntyre-Kirwin (hereinafter “Kirwin”) WO 2020247590 A1.
As to claim 1, Ogale discloses a method comprising:
at an electronic device comprising one or more displays, one or more processors, and non-transitory memory (see col.1, lines 48-67, a computer-readable storage medium can be configured to store instructions that when executed cause a processor to perform a process):
obtaining, from one or more cameras, three-dimensional (3D) images of an event (see col.1, lines 48-67 and col.2, lines 5-27, capturing a three-dimensional model of a plurality of images using a plurality of image capture devices and selecting a user-specified planar indicator from a plurality of user-specified planar indicators within a real-world space where the user-specified planar indicator is associated with an image of an object);
identifying a first action of the event (col.1, lines 48-60 and col.2, lines 30-45, identifying planar locations for the plurality of images within the real-world space);
causing presentation of a first view of the event on a first wall of a first virtual space, wherein the first view depicts the first action from a first simulated viewpoint based on the 3D images (col.3, lines 56-67 and col.4, line 1-12, the object represented by the three-dimensional model 110 can be a real-world object. In other words, the three-dimensional model 110 can represent a real-world object, or can be a virtual representation of the object. In some implementations, the object can be a building, a statue, a monument, a feature in nature (e.g., a mountain, a cliff, a lake), and/or so forth. In some implementations, the object can be a famous landmark such as the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, a pyramid in Giza, Egypt, the Taj Mahal, Mt. Fuji in Japan, and so forth and the real-world space 12 can represent a portion of a real-world such as, for example, a portion of land within a specific country on the earth. In other words, the real-world space 12 is a virtual representation of a portion of a real world. The real-world space 12 can be a space defined for referencing locations of, for example, objects (e.g., representations of real-world object), or portions thereof. In some implementations, the coordinates within the real-world space 12 can be, or can include, coordinates that can be used to reference any location on the earth (e.g., global positioning coordinates) or another planet. At least some portions of the real-world space 12 can be referenced to a ground surface 10 represented in FIG. 1 as a plane);
identifying a second action of the event (col.1, lines 48-60 and col.2, lines 30-45, col.18, lines 10-17, identifying planar locations for the plurality of images within the real-world space; and a plurality of user-specified planar indicators within a real-world space are accessed from a database where the plurality of user-specified planar indicators are associated with a plurality of images of an object and identify planar locations for the plurality of images within the real-world space ); and
causing presentation of a second view of the event on the first wall of the first virtual space, wherein the second view depicts the second action from a second simulated viewpoint based on the 3D images (see col.3, lines 56-67 and col.4, line 1-12, col.4, lines 50-67, a three-dimensional model of an object such as building can be viewed by a user within the virtual map when placed within the real-world space 12 using the computer system. The placement processing of the three-dimensional model 110 of the object within the real-world space 12 can be performed automatically after the three-dimensional model 110 of the object has been produced with little or no manual intervention by an entity producing the three-dimensional model 110 of the object.).
Kirwin, however, (see [0003]-[0004], [0032], and [0038], facilitates interaction with virtual character which identifies and inspects an input from a user to determine an action for the virtual character to take.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ogale’s system to facilitates interaction with virtual character which identifies and inspects an input from a user to determine an action for the virtual character to take, in order to enable real-time, context-aware, and adaptive responses that enhance engagement, immersion, and effectiveness across applications.
As to claim 2, the combination of Ogale and Kirwin discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Ogale discloses the claimed causing presentation of the first view of the event on a second wall of a second virtual space while causing presentation of the first view of the event on the first wall of the first virtual space (see col.3, lines 56-67 and col.4, line 1-12, col.4, lines 50-67, a three-dimensional model of an object such as building can be viewed by a user within the virtual map when placed within the real-world space 12 using the computer system. The placement processing of the three-dimensional model 110 of the object within the real-world space 12 can be performed automatically after the three-dimensional model 110 of the object has been produced with little or no manual intervention by an entity producing the three-dimensional model 110 of the object.)
As to claim 3, the combination of Ogale and Kirwin discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Ogale discloses the claimed causing a second virtual space to have a shared wall with the first virtual space; causing presentation of a view of the first virtual space on the shared wall of the second virtual space; and causing presentation of a view of the second virtual space on the shared wall of the first virtual space (see col.1, line 45-col.2, line 45).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ogale and Kirwin discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Ogale discloses the claimed causing presentation of contiguous images of the first wall of the first virtual space on the shared wall of the second virtual space (see col.1, line 45-col.2, line 45).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ogale and Kirwin discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Kirwin discloses the claimed wherein the first virtual space is presented to a first user at a first distance, the second virtual space is presented to a second user at a second distance, different from the first distance, and the method further includes: transmitting data for presenting the first virtual space by a first delay and transmitting data for presenting the second virtual space by a second delay, wherein the first delay and the second delay are determined based on the first distance and the second distance (see [0087]-[0088]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Ogale and Kirwin discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Ogale discloses the claimed wherein the first virtual space further includes a third wall, and the method further includes: causing presentation of a third view of the event on the third wall of the first virtual space, wherein the third view depicts the first action from a third simulated viewpoint based on the 3D images, the third simulated viewpoint different from the first simulated view point (see col.4, lines 48-67, the three-dimensional model 110 of the object can be placed in the real-world space 12 so that the three-dimensional model 110 of the object can be used (e.g., viewed, interacted with) within the real-world space 12. In other words, the three-dimensional model 110 of the object can be placed in the real-world space 12 so that the three-dimensional model 110 of the object can be virtually viewed within the real-world space 12. For example, the real-world space 12 can be included in a virtual map (e.g., global or earth map) that can be navigated using a computer system (e.g., a personal computer). In such implementations, a three-dimensional model of an object such as building can be viewed by a user within the virtual map when placed within the real-world space 12 using the computer system. The placement processing of the three-dimensional model 110 of the object within the real-world space 12 can be performed automatically after the three-dimensional model 110 of the object has been produced with little or no manual intervention by an entity producing the three-dimensional model 110 of the object).
As to claim 7, the combination of Ogale and Kirwin discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Kirwin discloses the claimed modifying audio output to correspond to the first simulated viewpoint and the second simulated viewpoint (see [0019] and [0031], a virtual character can include a virtual entity on a user device that is capable of communicating with a user. This communication can occur through different types of interactions, such as by voice (conversation), text (e.g., a chat or messaging application), images/video, music, and/or the execution of any arbitrary program (e.g., a virtual character turning on a light switch in an internet of things embedded system that it has permission to adjust), etc. Virtual characters may appear to have an animated body, can just be a voice, or a text-based agent).
As to claims 8-14, claims 8-14 are electronic device for performing the method of claims 1-7 above, They are rejected under the same rationale.
As to claims 15-20, claims 15-20 are non-transitory computer readable medium for executing the method of claims 1-7 above, They are rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method
Claims 8-14 are directed to a computer system.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception recited)
The limitation “identifying a first action of the event” in claims 1, 15 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “in a file system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper identifies a first action of the event.
The limitation “identifying a second action of the event” in claims 1, 15 and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “in a file system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper identifies a second action of the event.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integrated into a practical application):
The claim recites the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system" is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
“obtaining, from one or more cameras, three-dimensional (3D) images of an event” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “causing presentation of a first view of the event on a first wall of a first virtual space, wherein the first view depicts the first action from a first simulated viewpoint based on the 3D images” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “causing presentation of a second view of the event on the first wall of the first virtual space, wherein the second view depicts the second action from a second simulated viewpoint based on the 3D images” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The limitation “an electronic device comprising one or more displays, one or more processors, and non-transitory memory” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B (claim provides an inventive concept):
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “obtaining….” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “causing presentation …..” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in displaying information as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
With respect to the “electronic device comprising one or more displays, one or more processors, and non-transitory memory” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claims 8 and 15 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “causing presentation of the first view of the event on a second wall of a second virtual space while causing presentation of the first view of the event on the first wall of the first virtual space”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for causing presentation of the first view of the event on a second wall of a second virtual space, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. This analysis is also applied to claims 9 and 16.
Claim 3 recites “causing a second virtual space to have a shared wall with the first virtual space; causing presentation of a view of the first virtual space on the shared wall of the second virtual space; and causing presentation of a view of the second virtual space on the shared wall of the first virtual space”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for causing presentation of a view of the second virtual space on the shared wall of the first virtual space, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. This analysis is also applied to claims 10 and 17.
Claim 4 recites “causing presentation of contiguous images of the first wall of the first virtual space on the shared wall of the second virtual space”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for causing presentation of contiguous images of the first wall of the first virtual space on the shared wall of the second virtual space, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. This analysis is also applied to claims 11 and 18.
Claim 5 recites “transmitting data for presenting the first virtual space by a first delay and transmitting data for presenting the second virtual space by a second delay, wherein the first delay and the second delay are determined based on the first distance and the second distance”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for transmitting data for presenting the first virtual space, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. This analysis is also applied to claims 12 and 19.
Claim 6 recites “presentation of a third view of the event on the third wall of the first virtual space, wherein the third view depicts the first action from a third simulated viewpoint based on the 3D images, the third simulated viewpoint different from the first simulated view point”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for providing presentation of a third view of the event on the third wall of the first virtual space, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. This analysis is also applied to claims 13 and 20.
Claim 7 recites “modifying audio output to correspond to the first simulated viewpoint and the second simulated viewpoint”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for modifying audio output to correspond to the first simulated viewpoint and the second simulated viewpoint, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. This analysis is also applied to claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9384587 B2 (involved in receiving a number of video feeds for a live event from video capture devices located at an event venue and generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of the event based on received video feeds. A request to view a virtual event corresponding to the live event is received from a user device. The 3D model is forwarded to the user device. A virtual representation of the event based on the 3D model is forwarded. A request is received to manipulate a view within the virtual representation. A modified virtual representation of the event based on the request is output).
US 10445941 B2 (involved in determining boundaries of a live event from a two-dimensional (2D) video stream. A location of a live object is identified during the live event. Players (510, 515) in the live event are identified. Poses of each of the players are identified during the live event. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the live event is generated based on the boundaries of the live event, the location of the live object during the live event, and the poses of each of the players during the live event. A simulation of the 3D model is generated).
US 20190287310 (involved in determining boundaries of a live event from a two-dimensional (2D) video stream. A location of a live object is identified during the live event. Players (510, 515) in the live event are identified. Poses of each of the players are identified during the live event. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the live event is generated based on the boundaries of the live event, the location of the live object during the live event, and the poses of each of the players during the live event. A simulation of the 3D model is generated.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights