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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: There seems to be a typographical error. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, “determining one or more feature requirements for at least one of the intent and type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar.” For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “between the avatar and the avatar” to be “the intent of the user and the type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar of the predicted next interaction.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15; 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Finn et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0083148.
Re: claims 1, 8 and 15 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Finn teaches
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method comprising: predicting a next interaction for an avatar in a metaverse; (“At 102 the process or system determines that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated, for example the target avatar is approaching the chameleon avatar within a given region in the VU, or the target avatar has requested a meeting with the chameleon avatar through a chat, e-mail, text or other communication means.”; Finn, [0021], Fig. 1)
The system determines (predicts) that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated, because the target avatar is approaching the chameleon avatar within a given region of the virtual universe.
(“The logic machine 200 comprises an engagement determiner component 202 configured to identify and determine the occurrence or potential occurrence of an engagement of a chameleon avatar with another (target) avatar within a virtual universe domain.”; Fin, [0023], Fig. 2)
Fig. 2 illustrates an engagement determiner component that identifies and determines the occurrence or potential occurrence of an engagement (predicting a next interaction) of a chameleon avatar ( for an avatar) with a target avatar within the virtual universe (in a metaverse).
determining at least one of an intent of a user of the avatar for the predicted next interaction and a type of relationship between the avatar and an avatar of the predicted next interaction; determining one or more feature requirements for at least one of the intent and type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar. (“At 102, the process or system determines that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated, for example, the target avatar is approaching the chameleon avatar within a given region in the VU, or the target avatar has requested a meeting with the chameleon avatar through a chat, e-mail, text or other communication means. At 104, it is determined whether the chameleon avatar should be auto-morphed or otherwise altered from its current configuration and appearance into another configuration/appearance mor appropriate to engaging the target avatar;”; Finn, [0021])
The system determines that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated (predicted next interaction), such as, the target avatar approaching the chameleon avatar within a given region in the VU.
(“The logic machine 200 comprises an engagement determiner component 202 configured to identify and determine the occurrence or potential occurrence of an engagement of a chameleon avatar with another (target) avatar within a virtual universe domain.”; Finn, [0023], Fig. 2)
Fig. 2 illustrates an engagement determiner that determines the potential occurrence of an engagement (predicted next interaction) of a chameleon avatar with a target avatar.
(“.. automated modification of chameleon avatars may be based on a variety of inputs and parameters, including one or more of engagement context (e.g., social, business or regional context) creation and triggers;”; Finn, [0032])
The automated modification of chameleon avatars is based on inputs and parameters including engagement contexts, such as, social, business or regional context. Thus, the morphing of the chameleon avatar is based on, for example, the determined context being a business context.
(“A starting template for the chameleon avatar may be a clone of the target avatar or a standard template selected for the target or an amalgam of multiple avatars, the starting template then modified according to deltas in order to become pleasing to the customer or to attract a target avatar.”; Finn, [0033])
The starting template of the chameleon avatar is modified to become more pleasing to the customer (target) avatar (avatar of the predicted next interaction). When the context is determined to be a business context, the determined relationship is that the target avatar is the customer of the chameleon avatar (type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar of the predicted next interaction) and the determined intent is for the chameleon avatar to sell the target avatar something.
(“Chameleon avatar characteristics may be determined as a function of selected target avatars or associated users and independent of VU region or event data: for example, if a target customer is wearing a suit, a chameleon avatar outer attire may auto-morph to match (into a suit or other business-like clothing)...”; Finn, [0034])
If the target customer is wearing a suit, the chameleon avatar clothing auto-morphs into a suit or other business-like clothing (determining one or more feature requirements for the at least one of the intent and type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar).
(“... if any avatar within a defined proximity of the chameleon avatar user matches a pre-defined target audience list while within an authorized auto-morphing region, data analytics are performed to gather the right information relevant to the detected target avatar and used in configuring how the chameleon avatar should look or act, including the application of an deltas to data obtained through the data analytic processes.”; Finn, [0041])
When the target avatar is within a defined proximity of the chameleon avatar (it is the avatar of the predicted next interaction), data analytics are performed to gather the right information relevant to the detected target avatar (determining one or more feature requirements for the at least one of the intent and type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar) and used in configuring how the chameleon avatar should look or act.
comparing one or more current features of the avatar to one or more feature requirements for the predicted next interaction; determining, based on the comparison, that one or more current features of the avatar do not match one or more feature requirements for the predicted next interaction; (“At 104 it is determined whether the chameleon avatar should be auto-morphed or otherwise altered from its current configuration and appearance into another configuration/appearance more appropriate to engaging the target avatar...”; Finn, [0021], Fig. 1)
Fig. 1 illustrates that at 104, it is determined whether the chameleon avatar should be auto-morphed from its current appearance into another appearance more engaging to the target avatar (determining... that one or more current features of the avatar do not match the one or more feature requirements for the predicted next interaction).
(“An avatar attribute analyzer component 204 is provided and configured to analyze attributes of an engaging target avatar for use in selecting or configuring chameleon avatar outward appearances and other attributes perceived by the engaging target avatar. And avatar morpher/rendering engine component 206 is provided and configured to configure, select and/or render the chameleon avatar to the engaging target avatar as a function of data and processes provided by the avatar attribute analyzer 204”; Finn, [0023)
The avatar attribute analyzer analyzes attributes of an engaging target avatar for use in selecting chameleon avatar’s outward appearance (comparing one or more current features of the avatar to one or more feature requirements for the predicted next interaction, determining, based on the comparison, that one or more current features of the avatar do not match one or more of the feature requirements for the predicted next interaction).
(“... for example, if a target customer is wearing a suit, a chameleon avatar outer attire may auto-morph into a match (into a suit or other business-like clothing), even if the location is one where no one else is dressed in this way (e.g., a beach).”; Finn, [0034])
The comparing and determining based on the comparison are inherently performed. The system compares the current appearance of the chameleon avatar to the target avatar in order to determine if the chameleon avatar should be auto-morphed into an appearance more appropriate to the target avatar. For example, if the target customer avatar is wearing a suit, the chameleon avatar’s attire is auto-morphed into a suit or other business-like clothing.
and altering, responsive to the determination, features of the avatar to satisfy the one or more feature requirements for the predicted next interaction. (“... if an auto-morph process is appropriate for the current or potential engagement as determined at 104, then at 108 one or more attributes of the engaging target avatar are determined and at 110 the chameleon avatar is auto-morphed into a configuration and/or appearance appropriate for the determined attributes.”; Finn, [0022])
If an auto-morph process is appropriate for the current or potential engagement, then the chameleon avatar is auto-morphed into an appearance appropriate for the determined attributes of the engaging target avatar.
Claim 8 is a system analogous to the method of claim 1, is similar in scope and is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 8 has an additional limitation. Re: claims 8, Finn teaches
8. (Currently Amended) A system having a memory, computer readable instructions, and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (“As shown, the computer system 304 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 312, a memory 316... the processing unit 312 executes computer program code such as the code to implement various components of the present invention... including the engagement determiner component 202, the attribute analyzer component 204, and the morpher/rendering engine component 206, which are stored in memory 316 and/or storage system 332.”; Finn, [0066], Fig. 3)
Fig. 3 illustrates a system 304 that includes a memory and a CPU (one or more processors) that executes computer program code (for executing the computer readable instructions) to implement various components of the present invention (the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations)
Claim 15 is a computer program product analogous to the method of claim 1, is similar in scope and is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 15 has an additional limitation. Re: claim 15, Finn teaches
15. (Currently Amended) A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (“As shown, the computer system 304 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 312, a memory 316... the processing unit 312 executes computer program code such as the code to implement various components of the present invention... including the engagement determiner component 202, the attribute analyzer component 204, and the morpher/rendering engine component 206, which are stored in memory 316 and/or storage system 332.”; Finn, [0066], Fig. 3)
Fig. 3 illustrates a memory (computer readable storage medium) storing computer program code (having program instructions embodied therewith) that is executed by, for example a CPU (program instructions executable by one or more processors) to implement various components of the present invention (to cause the one or more processors to perform operations).
Re: claims 2, 9 and 16 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Finn teaches
2. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein predicting the next interaction comprises determining an intent of the avatar based on one or more of a current gaze direction, a current gaze duration, a proximity to a possible interaction, a trajectory relative to the possible interaction, an expected interaction for the avatar, learned behavior of a user of the avatar, and mined data about one or more of the user and the possible interaction.
(“At 102 the process or system determines that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated, for example the target avatar is approaching the chameleon avatar within a given region in the VU, or the target avatar has requested a meeting with the chameleon avatar through a chat, e-mail, text or other communication means. ”; Finn, [0021], Fig. 1)
The system determines that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated (predicting the next interaction) when the target avatar is approaching (a trajectory relative to the possible interaction) the chameleon avatar or when the target avatar has requested a meeting (an expected interaction for the avatar) with the chameleon avatar through an email (mined data).
(“Thus, a chameleon avatar user may predefine locations and target audiences for auto-morphing feature initiations, as well as threshold distances for enabling data analytic features of target audiences (for example, any target avatar within a default distance or proximity), such as 20 meters defined within the VU environment”; Finn, [0040])
The system determines that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated (predicted) based on a threshold distance such as, the target avatar being within 20 meters of the chameleon avatar (a proximity to a possible interaction) in the virtual universe.
Re: claims 3, 10 and 17 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Finn teaches
3. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein mined data comprises data collected from one or more of an email, social media platform, and a calendar of the user.
(“At 102 the process or system determines that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated, for example the target avatar is approaching the chameleon avatar within a given region in the VU, or the target avatar has requested a meeting with the chameleon avatar through a chat, e-mail, text or other communication means.”; Finn, [0021], Fig. 1)
The predicted engagement between the chameleon and the target avatar is based on the target avatar requesting a meeting through an email (mined data comprises data collected from one or more of an email, social media platform and a calendar of the user).
Re: claims 4, 11 and 18 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Finn teaches
4. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein altering the features of the avatar includes feature morphing.
(“Auto-morphing may be understood to comprehend automatically changing a chameleon avatar’s appearance in response to observed and determined target avatar attributes.”; Finn, [0022])
Auto-morphing (feature morphing) changes the appearance of a chameleon avatar’s appearance (altering the features of the avatar).
Re: claims 6, 13 and 20 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Finn teaches
6. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein altering the features further comprises: preparing one or more new features for the avatar; (“Thus, a chameleon avatar user may predefine locations and target audiences for auto-morphing feature initiations, as well as threshold distances for enabling data analytic features of target audiences (for example, any target avatar within a default distance or proximity), such as 20 meters defined within the VU environment”; Finn, [0040])
The chameleon predefines, for example, target audiences/avatars within a threshold distance/proximity for auto-morphing feature initiations
(“... if any avatar within a defined proximity of the chameleon avatar user matches a pre-defined target audience list while within an authorized auto-morphing region, data analytics are performed to gather the right information relevant to the detected target avatar and used in configuring how the chameleon avatar should look or act, including the application of any deltas to data obtained through the data analytic process.”; Finn, [0041])
If an avatar is within a defined proximity of the chameleon avatar and matches the pre-defined target audience list, then information is gathered relevant to the target avatar and used to determine how the chameleon avatar should look (altering the features further comprises: preparing one or more new features for the avatar).
waiting for a triggering event; and applying, responsive to the triggering event occurring, the one or more new features to the avatar. (“For example, auto-morphing may be limited to a presence of a chameleon avatar within the designated boundaries of a retail store or designated business area within a VU, and further limited to be triggered only by certain specified individuals or groups of targets within such an area. Entrance of a target/customer avatar into a business context may also trigger metadata reading and transformation of chameleon avatar; for example, a car salesman avatar may remain in a default configuration until a potential target/customer avatar approaches the car salesman avatar and initiates an inquiry about purchasing a car... A chameleon avatar application may also be configured to automatically track or detect current locations of target users and trigger auto-morphing when proximate to the target and if the chameleon avatar or the target is within a predefined auto-morphing location.”; Finn, [0037], [0041])
Entrance of a target avatar into a business context may trigger transformation of the chameleon avatar. For example, a car salesman chameleon avatar remains in a default configuration (waiting for a triggering event) until a potential target customer avatar approaches (is proximate) and initiates an inquiry about purchasing a car. Then the car salesman chameleon avatar’s appearance is transformed.
Re: claims 7 and 14 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Finn teaches
7. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the triggering event is one of a predetermined proximity to the predicted next interaction and a predetermined proximity from a prior interaction. (“Chameleon avatars may also be configured to exit an auto-morphing state as a function of certain criteria or inputs, for example, if no pre-defined target audience is within the user’s proximity, or when the chameleon avatar exits a location pre-defined for auto-morphing”; Finn, [0038])
The chameleon avatar exits an auto-morphing state when no pre-defined target audience is within the user’s proximity (a predetermined proximity from a prior interaction). For example, if the chameleon avatar has an interaction with a target avatar, when the interaction ends, the target avatar walks away, out of proximity of the chameleon avatar. At this point, the chameleon avatar exits an auto-morphing state (the triggering event is ... from a prior interaction).
(“Thus, a chameleon avatar user may predefine locations and target audiences for auto-morphing feature initiations, as well as threshold distances for enabling data analytic features of target audiences (for example, any target avatar within a default distance or proximity), such as 20 meters defined within the VU environment... if any avatar within a defined proximity of the chameleon avatar user matches a pre-defined target audience list while within an authorized auto-morphing region, data analytics are performed to gather the right information relevant to the detected target avatar and used in configuring how the chameleon avatar should look or act, including the application of any deltas to data obtained through the data analytic process.”; Finn, [0040])
The chameleon avatar enters an auto-morphing state when the target avatar is within the user’s proximity. For example, when a target avatar is within a predefined threshold distance, such as within 20 meters of the chameleon avatar (the triggering event is one of a predefined proximity to the predicted next interaction), the chameleon avatar enters the auto-morphing state and the appearance of the avatar changes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn as applied to claims 4, 11 and 18 above, and further in view of Makeev et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0124297.
Re: claims 5, 12 and 19 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Finn teaches
5. (Original) The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein feature morphing comprises pixel merging or mesh merging at least one of an outfit or an accessory with the one or more current features of the avatar. (“... for example, if a target customer is wearing a suit, a chameleon avatar outer attire may auto-morph into a match (into a suit or other business-like clothing), even if the location is one where no one else is dressed in this way (e.g., a beach).”; Finn, [0034])
The chameleon avatar outer attire auto-morphs (feature morphing) into, for example a suit (feature morphing... at least one of an outfit or an accessory with one or more features of the avatar), similar to what the target customer avatar is wearing. Finn is silent regarding feature morphing comprises pixel merging or mesh merging at least one of an outfit or an accessory with the one or more current features of the avatar, however, Makeev teaches this limitation.
(“A body “mesh” (or “render mesh”) is the actual visible geometry of an avatar. A body “mesh” includes graphical representations of body parts such as arms, legs, torso, head parts, etc... Analogously, a clothing “mesh” (or “render mesh”) can be any arbitrary mesh that graphically represents a piece of clothing, such as a shirt, pants, hat, shoes, etc...”; Makeev, [0051])
An avatar’s visible geometry comprises a body mesh. A clothing mesh represents a piece of clothing such as a shirt.
(“Fig. 4 shows an example of a clothing layer 400 deformed over a body cage (such as the body cage 300 shown in Fig. 3)... The clothing layer 400 is a graphical representation of a jacket (shown in gray shading in Fig. 4) having parts that may be generated/rendered using a polygon mesh 402 (e.g., a clothing mesh) that is comprised of a collection of vertices, edges, and faces (which may be triangle faces or other polygon faces).”; Makeev, [0061], Fig. 4)
Fig. 4 illustrates that the clothing layer of a jacket is deformed over an avatar’s body cage. The jacket has a clothing mesh.
(“The clothing layer 400 includes an inner cage (not shown in Fig 4) having feature points that correspond to the feature points of the body cage 300. Specifically, the feature points of the inner cage of the clothing layer 400 are mapped to the feature points of the body cage 300 that make up the left and right lower arms, the left and right upper arms, and the torso.”; Makeev, [0062])
The clothing layer of the jacket includes an inner cage having feature points (vertices of the clothing mesh) that correspond to feature points of the body cage 300 (vertices of the body mesh).
(“Fig. 5 shows an example of the clothing layer and portions of the body cage 300 of Fig. 4 being used to form an outer cage 500. More specifically, the feature points of the outer cage of the clothing layer 400 of Fig. 4 are now combined with feature points of the body cage 300, so as to result in a composite outer cage 500 that is made up of feature points of exposed portions of the body cage 300 and feature points along the exterior surface of the jacket. For example, the exposed outer surfaces 502 of the jacket (formed by the body, hood, and sleeves of the jacket) provide a set of feature points and the exposed legs, hands, head, and part of the chest of the body that are not covered by the jacket provide another set of feature points, and these two sets of feature points (combined) provide the feature points of the outer cage 500. ”; Makeev, [0065])
Fig. 5 illustrates that the jacket clothing layer and the portions of the body cage form an outer cage 500. The feature points of the outer cage of the clothing layer are combined (mesh merging) with the feature points of the body cage, resulting in a composite outer cage (mesh merging) that includes feature points of exposed portions of the body cage and feature points along the exterior surface of the jacket. Makeev is combined with Finn such that the auto-morphing of Finn include the mesh merging of Makeev. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Finn by adding the feature of feature morphing comprises pixel merging or mesh merging at least one of an outfit or an accessory with the one or more current features of the avatar. in order to allow any body geometry to be fitted with any clothing geometry including enabling layers of clothing to be fitted over underlying layer(s) of clothing, thereby providing customization without the limits imposed by pre-defined geometries, or requiring complex computations to make a clothing item compatible with arbitrary body shapes of avatars or other clothing items, as taught by Makeev ([0047]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“In contrast, the present application does not attempt to mimic a target avatar. Instead, data mining and natural language processing are leveraged to build feature requirements for a predicted next interaction and those requirements are then used to alter the user's avatar in a manner appropriate for that interaction. For example, in the context of a metaverse conference 310, a user's avatar will morph into a "casual" appearance prior to interactions with a first firm when it is learned that the first firm expects a casual appearance, while the user's avatar will morph in to a "formal" appearance prior to interactions with a second firm when it is learned that the second firm is more traditional/formal and/or that the user is planning to interview with that firm (learned, e.g., via data mining and natural language processing, refer to para. 54 of the originally filed specification).
With that understanding in mind, it cannot be said that Finn fairly discloses or suggests at least "determining at least one of an intent of a user of the avatar for the predicted next interaction and a type of relationship between the avatar and an avatar of the predicted next interaction" and "determining one or more feature requirements for at least one of the intent and the type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar", as currently recited. In short, Finn is not concerned with the intent of the user or with the type of relationship between the avatars, but rather with the features of the target avatar itself.
Makeev does not cure these defects. Consequently, Finn and Makeev fail to disclose each and every element of amended independent claim 1. As such, independent claim 1 patentably defines over the cited art. Claims 8 and 15 are similarly amended and are allowable over the art for at least the same reasons.
Moreover, since the dependent claims depend, either directly or indirectly, from Applicant's independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant respectfully submits that these claims are allowable over the art of record as well, notwithstanding their independent recitation of patentable features. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that these rejections be withdrawn.”
Examiner disagrees. Finn teaches the amended limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Finn teaches, that the system determines that an engagement with the target avatar is indicated (predicted next interaction), such as, the target avatar approaching the chameleon avatar within a given region in the VU. (Finn, [0021]). Fig. 2 illustrates an engagement determiner that determines the potential occurrence of an engagement (predicted next interaction) of a chameleon avatar with a target avatar. (Finn, [0023], Fig. 2). The automated modification of chameleon avatars is based on inputs and parameters including engagement contexts, such as, social, business or regional context. Thus, the morphing of the chameleon avatar is based on, for example, the determined context being a business context. (Finn, [0032]). The starting template of the chameleon avatar is modified to become more pleasing to the customer (target) avatar (avatar of the predicted next interaction). When the context is determined to be a business context, the determined relationship is that the target avatar is the customer of the chameleon avatar (type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar of the predicted next interaction) and the determined intent is for the chameleon avatar to sell the target avatar something. (Finn, [0033]). If the target customer is wearing a suit, the chameleon avatar clothing auto-morphs into a suit or other business-like clothing (determining one or more feature requirements for the at least one of the intent and type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar). (Finn, [0034]). When the target avatar is within a defined proximity of the chameleon avatar (it is the avatar of the predicted next interaction), data analytics are performed to gather the right information relevant to the detected target avatar (determining one or more feature requirements for the at least one of the intent and type of relationship between the avatar and the avatar) and used in configuring how the chameleon avatar should look or act. (Finn, [0041])
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “... data mining and natural language processing are leveraged to build feature requirements for a predicted next interaction and those requirements are then used to alter the user's avatar in a manner appropriate for that interaction. For example, in the context of a metaverse conference 310, a user's avatar will morph into a "casual" appearance prior to interactions with a first firm when it is learned that the first firm expects a casual appearance, while the user's avatar will morph in to a "formal" appearance prior to interactions with a second firm when it is learned that the second firm is more traditional/formal and/or that the user is planning to interview with that firm (learned, e.g., via data mining and natural language processing, refer to para. 54 of the originally filed specification).”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNA J RICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-7532. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5pm EST (alternate Fridays off).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7776. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Donna J. Ricks/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights