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 .
Amendment of Claims
The amendment filed 6/24/25 has been entered.
(1) Independent claims: 1, 12 and 18
(2) Canceled claims: 10-11 and 16-27.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9, 12-15 and 18-20 are pending. They comprising of 3 groups:
1) Manufacture (product)1: 1-9, and
2) Method1: 12-15, and
3) Apparatus (machine)1: 18-20.
They all of similar scope.
As of 6/24/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
(currently amended) A customer service computer program product for assisting a user within a metaverse, the computer program product comprising executable instructions, the executable instructions when executed by a processor on a computer system:
[1] receive via a network, from a tier-n service representative using a virtual reality/augmented reality headset, a request to authenticate the tier-n service representative;
[2] authenticate the tier-n service representative;
[3] create, via the network, a unique tier-n service avatar within the metaverse;
[4] assign the unique tier-n service avatar to the tier-n service representative; and
[5] interface, over the network, between the tier-n service representative and the unique tier-n service avatar by transmitting, over the network, one or more interactions from the tier-n service representative to the unique tier-n service avatar; and
[6] receive, via the network; a help request transmitted by the user; and a level of authentication of the user;
wherein when the user is authenticated to tier-n, the tier-n service avatar:
[7] receives, via the network, the one or more interactions from the tier-n service representative;
[8] moves, in the metaverse, proximate to a user avatar in response to the help request transmitted by the tier-n user, within a predetermined time of receiving the help request from the user, wherein the pre-determined time is determined through one or more artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) algorithms analyzing one or more of: a) a location of the service avatar;
b) a location of the user avatar;
c) past history of the user;
d) the help request;
e) time of day; and
f) availability of service representatives; and
[9] recreates the one or more interactions within the metaverse;
Wherein the one or more interactions comprise a typed response intended to assist the user and translated into speech; and
wherein when the user is authenticated to tier-(n-1), a message is transmitted over the network to the tier-(n-1) user declining movement of the tier-n service avatar.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[8] are added to the beginning of each element.
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 1-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15 and 18-20 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15 and 18-20:
Claim categories:
Manufacture/product: 1-6, 8-9, and
Process/Method: 12, 14-15, and
Apparatus: 18-20.
Analysis:
Product: claims 1-6, 8-9, are directed to a customer service computer program product for assisting a customer representation (avatar) by providing a service representative representation (avatar) to interact with the customer representation in a virtual reality environment (metaverse), comprising the steps as shown in claim 1.
(Step 1:Yes).
Method: claims 12, and 14-15, are directed to a computer-implemented method for assisting a customer representation (avatar) by providing a service representative representation (avatar) to interact with the customer representation in a virtual reality environment (metaverse), comprising the steps as shown in claim 1. (Step 1:Yes).
Apparatus: claims 18-20 are directed to a system comprising a server, the server comprising a communication link, a processor, and memory configured for assisting a customer representation (avatar) by providing a service representative representation (avatar) to interact with the customer representation in a virtual reality environment (metaverse), comprising the steps as shown in claim 1. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of for method for assisting a customer representation (avatar) by providing a service representative (SR) representation (avatar 1) to interact with the customer representation (avatar 2) in a virtual reality environment (metaverse), comprising the steps authenticating a SR, creating a SR presentation object (avatar 1) in a virtual reality environment, receiving a request for help from a user, receiving an interaction between the SR presentation object (avatar 1) and user, moves the SR presentation object (avatar 1) close to user representation (avatar 2), and creating the one or more interaction between the two representations (objects).
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for assisting a customer in a virtual store using service representative in a simulated environment. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Alternatively, the recited limitations also fall within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to method for monitoring a user/customer presence in a store and providing a service representation (object on screen, an avatar) to assist the customer upon request. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(2A) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because in particular, the claims recites well known method for monitoring the presence of a customer in a store in a simulated environment and providing a service representative presentation (avatar 1) to assist the customer representation (avatar 2) upon a request for help by a customer.
The claimed invention is basically “a data processing system” comprising the steps of receiving data, authenticating user data, creating a service presentative presentation (avatar 1), creating a user presentation (avatar 2), moving the avatar 2 near avatar 1, and creates the interaction. The user device in both steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer function of receiving data, generating data objects, and monitor interactions between objects), a VR headset, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or generic accessing device such as VR headset. Additionally, the steps of “receiving data” and “communicating” are considered as insignificant activities.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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.
(2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional element of “creating a service representation object (avatar 1), “creating a user representation object (avatar 2)”, and “carrying out an interaction between two representation objects (avatars), amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the monitoring a business activity between two users using a generic computer component in Step 2A, prong 2. Re-evaluating here in step 2B, this is also determined to well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above), which deals with the type of transmission, encryption, this further limits the abstract idea of the interaction transmission, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 2 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1 above), which deals with the type of service representative, an AI bot, this further limits the abstract idea of the type of representative, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 3 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 4-6 (part of 1 above), which deals with the features of the service representative (avatar), these further limit the abstract idea of the type of representative (avatar), without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 4-6 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 8-9 (part of 1 above), which deals with the features of the service representative (avatar), these further limit the abstract idea of the features of the representative (avatar), without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 7-9 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15 and 18-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 1-11 (product1) and respectively 12 (method1) and 18-20 (apparatus1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) CHAVEZ 2013/0.051.548, and
(2) BOSS ET AL. 2010/0.064.359, and
(3) FLOCKHART ET AL., US 2013/0.287.202, and
(4) GRAJALES US 2022/0.354.440, and
(5) KHRAWISH US 2016/0.035.009.
As for independent claims 1, 12 and 18, CHAVEZ teaches a customer service computer program product for assisting a user within a metaverse, the computer program product comprising executable instructions, the executable instructions when executed by a processor on a computer system:
{see [0003-0004 …service … maximize customers satisfaction…Virtual Reality (VR”) … a computer-simulated environment simulating physical presence in a define environment … emulate the real or an imaginary world..”], [0006… virtual reality environment comprising visual representations, … avatars, of agents and … customers..”], This reads over “metaverse” and claim 11 “A non-transient computer readable medium, claim 1 “A method, …” and claim 12 “A system…”}
PNG
media_image1.png
129
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
321
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0027 … call center… forward calls to human or automated resources or agents for servicing.], [0043 … for resources(e.g., human agents) and customers.]
[3] create a service avatar within the metaverse;
PNG
media_image3.png
287
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{As shown in [0091] above, a “service avatar” is created in the virtual store to serve “customer avatar.”}
[4] assign the service avatar to the service representative; and
{As shown in [0091] above, one or more “servicing resources” such as service representative or agent is chosen to serve the “customer avatar.”}
[5] interface between the service representative and the service avatar by transmitting one or more interactions from the service representative to the service avatar;
PNG
media_image3.png
287
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{see [0091… one or more interactions between agent and customer avatars..”]}
wherein the service avatar:
[6] receive, via the network; a help request transmitted by the user; and a level of authentication of the user;
PNG
media_image2.png
321
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Servicing incoming contacts from customers regarding goods and services reads over receiving a help request transmitted via the network by the user. The optimizing contact center performance in light of policies and objects while minimizing costs and maximizing customer satisfaction. Also, as shown in [0091], a selected customer is chosen which would inherently includes a level of authentication of the user to minimize costs and maximizing customer satisfaction. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to include a level of authentication of the user to minimize costs and maximizing customer satisfaction.
[7] receives the one or more interactions from the service representative;
{see [0091… one or more interactions between agent and customer avatars..”]}
[8] moves proximate to a user avatar in response to a help request transmitted by the user; and
{see [003 … customer contacts regarding goods and services…],
[0018 …The avatar is able to move within the VR environment … is within a defined spatial proximity of an object..],
PNG
media_image4.png
193
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0044… The VR environment depicts the user (s) and the selected object(s) as avatars or other visual or graphical representation visible to the user…]}
In view of the teaching above, in response to a help request (command) received from the customer, the “service avatar” moves proximate to the avatars of the user and object.
[9] recreates the one or more interactions within the metaverse.
{see [0091… more interactions between agent and customer avatars..”]}
The term “more interactions” reads over “recreate” of one or more interactions.
CHAVEZ fairly teaches the claimed invention except for discloses steps [1] “receive …” and [2] “authenticate…”, and type of service “tier-n” service representative and tier-(n-1), predetermined-time for moving proximate to a user avatar, and VR headset and the translator.
In a similar virtual reality universe (metaverse), BOSS ET AL. deals with user credential verification is cited to teach the steps of
[1] receive, from a user, a request to authenticate the service;
[003… user credential verification indication in a virtual universe..],
[0036 for a user 50 to establish verified credentials (s) 54. … a user to register a real identity, register……provide information about themselves … may then be verified using existing know verification method..] and [0043… one or more queries to indicator 132….. The requesting avatar 60 may ask for a verification element].
In view of the cited paragraphs, BOSS ET AL. teaches the submission of a request to authenticate the user for service in the VR universe.
[2] authenticate the requested user for use as an avatar to appear in a VR universe (metaverse)for service;
{see Fig. 1, 106 “Credential Verification Indication system”, Fig. 3, p1 “Verify credentials.” And respective [0040]. The credential verification indication feature would inherently includes a request of a level of authentication of the user.
PNG
media_image5.png
319
475
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[3] create a service avatar within the metaverse;
PNG
media_image6.png
338
526
media_image6.png
Greyscale
{see Fig. 1, avatar 56, and respective [0040]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality (metaverse) customer service system of CHAVEZ by including authentication or verification request of a user for use as an avatar to appear in a VR universe as taught by BOSS ET AL. as taught in [0040] for avatar user authentication. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Note that in [0040], BOSS ET AL. also teaches the moving the service avatar 56 to be approximate to or in the action zone 72 for interaction with other avatars 60, therefore, in view of the teaching of supporting the customer avatar by the representative avatar in CHAVEZ, it would have been obvious to move the representative avatar proximate to the user avatar for response to help request.
CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL fairly teaches the claimed invention except for discloses type of service “tier-n” service representative and tier-(n-1), predetermined-time for moving proximate to a user avatar, and VR headset and the translator.
FLOCKHART ET AL. teaches various work sign assignments tiers for service agent at various working conditions including tier-n service and tier-(n-1) service, defer work assignment, etc., for different work conditions and scenarios, see Fig.3, Fig. 4, and [0004].
PNG
media_image7.png
244
758
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
599
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
579
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
FLOCKHART ET AL. also teaches various work sign assignments tiers for service agent at various working conditions including tier-n service and tier-(n-1) service, defer work assignment, etc, for different work conditions and scenarios, see Fig. 4, and [0004].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of FLOCKHART ET AL. in the system of CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL. to carry out tier-n service for the service representative and service avatar and if the user does not meet certain authentication tier, tier-(n-1), then the service to the user is deferred or declined as taught in Fig. 4 above.
CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL /FLOCKHART et al. fairly teaches the claimed invention except for discloses the VR headset and the translator and predetermined-time for moving proximate to a user avatar.
In a similar virtual environment, GRAJALES is cited to teach the accessing of the virtual environment for involved participants using a virtual reality (VR) / augmented reality headset, see claim 1.
PNG
media_image10.png
288
450
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality (metaverse) customer service system of CHAVEZ /BOSS et al./ FLOCKHART et al. by using a VR headset for accessing the session by the participants, as taught by GRAJALES, see claim 1. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As for the limitation of the typed of response, intended to assist the user and translated into speech, this is taught in GRAJALES [0011] and claim 11 “translator for multi languages settings and recognition and translation.
PNG
media_image11.png
180
644
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
322
450
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality (metaverse) customer service system of CHAVEZ /BOSS et al./ FLOCKHART et al. to include translation the user request message into speech common to all parties as taught by GRAJALES above.
CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL /FLOCKHART et al./ GRAJALES fairly teaches the claimed invention except for discloses the predetermined-time for moving proximate to a user avatar.
in a customer service interaction, KHRAWISH teaches a service to move proximate to the user within a pre-determined time of the help request (d), see [0056-0058].
PNG
media_image13.png
280
692
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
135
476
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality (metaverse) customer service system of CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL./FLOCKHART ET AL./GRAJALES by including a service to move proximate to the user within a pre-determined time of the help request as taught by KHRAWISH, see [0056 and 0058].
As for the feature of AI/ML algorithm, this is taught in GRAJALES [0002 “AI/ML”] and Fig. 14A and 14B for improving workflow of a vision screening technology, par. [0002].
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deals with a feature of the service avatar, comprises an avatar overlay, this is taught in BOSS ET AL. [0043 … , the user interface of the requesting avatar 60 then, for example, overlay the indication on avatar 56, or otherwise makes it available in a targeted fashion to the appropriate recipient.], which teaches the service avatar comprises an avatar overlay. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to include an overlay for the service avatar for further interaction.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deals with a feature of the service avatar, is linked to a particular location within the metaverse, this is taught in BOSS ET AL. Fig. 1, location (area) 72, which is area of interaction between the avatars.
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1 above), which deals with a feature of the interaction, an analogue of a geographical location, this is taught in CHAVEZ [0091] which describes “a selected customer could view and/or hear, as if he were in the store, one or more selected interactions between agent and customer avatars.” Alternatively, the selection of other types of interaction analogue such as “geographical location” would have been obvious as mere selection of other similar interaction features.
As for dep. claim 8 (part of 1 above), which deals with a feature of the service avatar, moves proximate to the user avatar after the user is authenticated, this is taught in BOSS ET AL. Fig. 1, Credential Verification indication and respective [0040…for the avatars 56, 60 appear for verification … certain level of credential verification to enter the area 72] for verification all avatars entering interaction area (72) which includes user and user avatar (60).
As for dep. claim 9 (part of 1 above), which deals with a feature of the service avatar, moves proximate to the user avatar after the user is authenticated, this is taught in BOSS ET AL. Fig. 1, Credential Verification indication and respective [0040…for the avatars 56, 60 appear for verification …certain level of credential verification to enter the area 72] for verification all avatars entering interaction area (72) which includes user and user avatar (60).
Regard dep. claim 14 (part of 12 above), which deals an “expired time” after a pre-determined length of time of help request, this is taught in KHRAWISH [0056] when the specific employee fails to respond by touching the screen or press a button within a pre-determined amount of time.
As for dep. claim 19 (part of 18 above), which deals with a condition of service with respect to the user authentication level, this is taught in [0040] wherein each side is assured that the other users are credential as claimed and/or meet a certain level of credential verification standard. Therefore, it would have been obvious that for interaction between the representative avatar and the user avatar to occur in Fig. 1, the user has to meet a certain authentication standard.
As for dep. claim 20 (part of 18 above), which deals with a condition of service with respect to the user authentication level, this is taught in [0040] wherein each side is assured that the other users are credential as claimed and/or meet a certain level of credential verification standard. Therefore, it would have been obvious that for interaction between the representative avatar and the user avatar is prevented if the user is lower than the service avatar’s standard.
Dependent claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL. /FLOCKHART ET AL. /GRAJALES/KHRAWISH as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of (6) CN 102857393, 2013-01-02.
CN 102857393 teaches encrypted transmission in a simulated environment, see [0051].
PNG
media_image15.png
194
572
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality (metaverse) customer service system of CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL./FLOCKHART ET AL. by including encrypted transmission in a simulated environment as taught by CN 102857393 for secure transmission, as taught in [0051].
Dependent claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL./FLOCKHART ET AL. /GRAJALES /KHRAWISH as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of (7) TOMLINSON, US 2020/0.143.386.
In a customer service interaction, TOMLINSON teaches the use of a service representative in the form of a human or artificial intelligence (AI) bot for interaction with a user, see [0011].
PNG
media_image16.png
230
604
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality (metaverse) customer service system of CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL./FLOCKHART ET AL. /GRAJALES /KHRAWISH by including encrypted transmission in a simulated environment as taught by CN 102857393 for secure transmission, as taught in [0051].
Dependent claim 15 (part of 14 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL./ FLOCKHART ET AL. /GRAJALES/KHRAWISH as applied to claims 1, 8-9 above, and further in view of (8) MINICUCCI ET AL., 2016/0.189.194.
MINICUCCI ET AL., is cited to teach the pre-determined time length from a customer request can be variable time, see [0038].
PNG
media_image17.png
146
546
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality (metaverse) customer service system of CHAVEZ /BOSS ET AL. / FLOCKHART ET AL. /GRAJALES by modifying the pre-determined time length from a customer request to be variable time as taught by MINICUCCI et al. based on changes of collaboration conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) 103 Rejections: applicant’s arguments are noticed but new rejections have been created due to amendment.
2) 101 Rejections: Applicant’s comments are not persuasive. The amended features such as carrying out a pred-determined time for moving a feature using AI/ML algorithms appears to be conventional practice of applying AI/ML on the claimed invention, see GRAJALES [0002]. Furthermore, they are not considered as “additional elements” and do not pass the Step 2, Prong 2 nor Step 2B. The advantages of “metaverse” environment as shown on page 9 appear to be well known and conventional practices.
As for the comments with respect to the particular type of computing device (AR/VR headsets), they appear to be conventional device for use in conventional activities. Furthermore, they are not considered as “additional elements” and do not pass the Step 2, Prong 2 nor Step 2B. The advantages of “metaverse” environment as shown on page 9 appear to be well known and conventional practices.
Applicant’s comment that the amended independent claims are similar to eligible claim 3 in example 47 is not persuasive because example 47 deals with a method of using artificial neural network (ANN) to detect malicious network packets and the last two steps of claim 3 calls for ( e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time; and (f) blocking future traffic from the source address, which are two positive steps to detect and to block incoming malicious network packets. Here, there is no positive citation of any step to prevent problems or issues with respect to the metaverse.
Applicant’s comment with respect to the PTAB decision in Ex Parte Hannun is noted but not found to be persuasive because it deals with a computerized transcription.
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.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689