Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Amendment filed on September 17, 2025.
Claims 4, 8, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20251001 for references purposes only.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite “predict, using recurrent neural network algorithm.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “predict, using a recurrent neural network algorithm.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the one or more attributes of the avatar.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “one or more attributes of the avatar.”
Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite “authorize, using an access management engine… information associated with a digital identity of the user.” The phrase “information associated with a digital identity of the user” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to “the information associated with a digital identity of the user” previously recited, or to “second information associated with a digital identity of the user.” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “the information associated with a digital identity of the user.”
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 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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2023/0409679) in view of Kapur et al. (US 2023/0070586).
Claims 1, 12, 18
Rubin discloses:
a processor (processor, see [0074]);
a non-transitory storage device (storage devices, see [0074]) containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from a user input device (on behalf of the first user, see [0019]), a request (request, see [0019]) from a user to access a first virtual environment (e.g. online gaming platform, see [0019]);
retrieve, using an NFT navigation engine, an NFT (master virtual persona token, MVPT, see [0015]) from a distributed ledger (distributed ledger technology, DLT, see [0013, 0016, 0019]) based on at least the NFT identifier (authenticator generated using the first user’s authorized cryptographic key pair, ACKP, see [0013, 0019]);
extract, from a metadata layer of the NFT, information associated with the user (first user account associated with ACKP, see [0013]), information associated with a digital identity of the user (viewing display rights, see [0099]), and transaction conditions (permissions, see [0017, 0019]) associated with the access to the first virtual environment, wherein the one or more attributes of the avatar comprise an outward appearance (appearance attributes, physical attributes, see [0027]) of the avatar;
authorize, using an access management engine, the user to access (allowed to access, see [0020]) the first virtual environment based on at least the information associated with the user, information associated with a digital identity of the user, and the transaction conditions, wherein the digital identity of the user comprises an avatar (avatar, see [0094]);
monitor the avatar of the user during one or more instances of access (track real-time use of the virtual persona of the first user, see [0061, 0080]) of the user within the first virtual environment.
Rubin does not disclose:
Wherein the request… identifier;
Wherein the one or more… environment;
Extract… access;
Compare… NFT;
Determine… NFT;
Predict… objects;
Determine… deviation;
Determine… limits;
Provide… acceptable.
Kapur teaches:
wherein the request comprises at least an NFT identifier (NFT identifier, see [0315]);
wherein the one or more instances of access comprises one or more interactions of the avatar of the user with one or more digital objects (e.g. tool in a game environment, content element is a cat, see [0323, 0458]) in the first virtual environment;
extract one or more attributes (identity, e.g. user A vs. user B, whether a new user, see [0368]) of the avatar of the user during the one or more instances of access;
compare the one or more attributes of the avatar of the user during the one or more instances of access with the information associated with the digital identity of the user recorded in the NFT (check whether meets qualified purchase requirement, see [0368]);
determine that the one or more attributes of the avatar of the user during the one or more instances of access matches the information associated with the digital identity of the user recorded in the NFT (e.g. yes, new sale to a new owner, see [0368]);
predict, using recurrent neural network algorithm (machine learning techniques, see [0477]), a likely instance of access (score, e.g. 35% probability to include a cat, see [0383, 0458]) of the avatar of the user based on the one or more interactions of the avatar of the user with the one or more digital objects;
determine that the predicted instance of access of the user is within predetermined limits of deviation (meets qualified purchase requirement, see [0368]);
determine that a current behavior of the avatar of the user is acceptable (e.g. allow purchase, access to new virtual room, see [0323, 0368]) based on at least determining that the predicted instance of access of the user is within the predetermined limits; and
provide continued authorization for the user (e.g. access to new virtual room, see [0323]) to access the first virtual environment based on at least determining that the one or more attributes of the avatar of the user during the one or more instances of access matches the information associated with the digital identity of the user recorded in the NFT and the current behavior of the avatar of the user is acceptable.
Rubin discloses a storage device, a processor, receiving a request to access a first virtual environment, retrieving a NFT from a ledger, extracting user information and transaction conditions, authorizing user access to the first virtual environment, and continuously monitoring. Rubin does not disclose a NFT identifier, interacting with a digital object, extracting/comparing attributes, determining the attributes match information, predicting an instance of access, determining the predicted instance is within predetermined limits, determining a current behavior is acceptable, and providing continued authorization, but Kapur does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the systems and methods for a tokenized virtual persona for use with a plurality of software applications of Rubin with the NFT identifier, interacting with a digital object, extracting/comparing attributes, determining the attributes match information, predicting an instance of access, determining the predicted instance is within predetermined limits, determining a current behavior is acceptable, and providing continued authorization of Kapur because 1) a need exists for controlling, transferring, modifying, selling, assigning, and managing a user’s virtual persona within a variety of applications (see Rubin [0008]); and 2) a need exists for evolving NFTs that content producers can control (see Kapur [0003, 0005]). An NFT identifier can specify attributes about the NFT and the blockchain the NFT is on (Kapur [0315]). Interacting with a digital object, extracting/comparing attributes, determining the attributes match information, predicting an instance of access, determining the predicted instance is within predetermined limits, determining a current behavior is acceptable, and providing continued authorization helps to manage the user’s virtual persona.
Claims 2, 13, 19
Furthermore, Rubin discloses:
validate, using the access management engine, the information associated with the user (authenticator using the first user’s ACKP, e.g. digital signature, see [0095]) to verify user identity (verifies request, see [0096]);
determine, using the access management engine, that the transaction conditions meet one or more requirements (permissions, see [0096]) for access to the first virtual environment, wherein the transaction conditions comprise at least access privileges (grant access, use, viewing rights, see [0096]) of the user; and
authorize, using the access management engine, the user to access the first virtual environment (grant access, see [0096]) based on at least validating the information associated with the user and that the transaction conditions meet the one or more requirements for access to the first virtual environment.
Claims 3, 14, 20
Furthermore, Rubin discloses:
receive, from the user input device, an access registration request (request to access, see [0095]) from the user;
prompt the user, via the user input device, to provide at least the information associated with the user (authenticator using the first user’s ACKP, see [0095]), information associated with a digital identity (avatar, see [0094]) of the user;
receive, from the user input device, the information associated with the user and the information associated with a digital identity of the user (see 0094-0095]); and
authorize the access registration request (allow access, see [0096]) based on at least the information associated with the user and the information associated with a digital identity of the user.
Claims 5, 16
Furthermore, Rubin discloses:
the information associated with a digital identity of the user further comprises one or more avatar attributes, wherein the one or more avatar attributes comprises rotational angles (movements, see [0006]) of the avatar, scale of the avatar in a virtual environment spatial space, dimensions of the avatar, mass of the avatar, friction property of the avatar, pixel density of the avatar, color of the avatar, shading of the avatar, texture of the avatar, lighting of the avatar, behavior (behavior, see [0006]) of the avatar, and input device impact on the avatar.
Claims 6, 17
Furthermore, Rubin discloses:
authorizing the access registration request further comprises:
generating, using an NFT generation engine, the NFT (MVPT is generated, see [0015]) based on at least the information associated with the user and the information associated with the digital identity of the user; and
linking the user identity with the NFT (avatar forms a virtual persona base, VPB, which is associated with the first user account, owner of the MVPT, see [0027]).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Rubin discloses:
determine an authorization level (allowed to access, use, view the virtual personas according to verified permissions, see [0097, 0099]) associated with the user based on at least the information associated with the user;
generate the transaction conditions (permissions, see [0097, 0099]) associated with the access to the first virtual environment for the user based on at least the authorization level associated with the user;
record the transaction conditions associated with the access to the first virtual environment for the user in a smart contract (smart contract, see [0077, 0085]) associated with the NFT; and
store the smart contract in the metadata layer of the NFT (see [0085]).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Kapur teaches:
determine that the one or more attributes of the digital identity of the user during the one or more instances of access does not match the information (e.g. not a new owner, user A selling to user B in circular manner, see [0368]) associated with the digital identity of the user recorded in the NFT;
in response, revoke the continued authorization (revoke their status, NFT remain static, no new layer revealed, see [0206-0207, 0368]) for the user to access the first virtual environment; and
transmit control signals configured to cause an administrator input device to display a notification (notification, e.g. peeling is not possible, see [0398]) indicating that the one or more attributes of the digital identity of the user during the one or more instances of access does not match the information associated with the digital identity of the user recorded in the NFT.
Claim 10
Furthermore, Rubin discloses:
monitor the one or more instances of access (track real-time use of the virtual persona of the first user, see [0061, 0080]) of the user within the first virtual environment using the NFT.
Furthermore, Kapur teaches:
compare the one or more instances of access with the transaction conditions (check whether meets qualified purchase requirement, see [0368]) associated with the access to the first virtual environment;
determine that the one or more instances of access are within one or more constraints (e.g. yes, new sale to a new owner, see [0368]) associated with the transaction conditions; and
authorize the one or more instances of access (allow purchase, e.g. additional layer is revealed, see [0368]) based on at least determining that the one or more instances of access are within the one or more constraints associated with the transaction conditions.
Claim 11
Furthermore, Kapur teaches:
determine that the one or more instances of access are outside the one or more constraints (e.g. not a new owner, user A selling to user B in circular manner, see [0368]) associated with the transaction conditions; and
deny the one or more instances of access (revoke status, NFT remain static, no new layer revealed, see [0206-0207, 0368]) based on at least determining that the one or more instances of access are outside the one or more constraints associated with the transaction conditions.
Response to Arguments
112 arguments
Applicant argues that the Office referred back to information previously recited when making the rejection.
Examiner disagrees. The claims recite “extract… information associated with a digital identity of the user” (i.e. first recitation) and “authorize… information associated with a digital identity of the user” (i.e. second recitation). The second recitation of the phrase “information associated with a digital identity of the user” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to the first recitation of the phrase, or to “new information associated with a digital identity of the user.” That is the basis for the 112 rejection.
103 arguments
Applicant argues that Kapur does not teach determining the predicted instance of access of the user, determining a current behavior of the avatar, and providing continued authorization for the user to access the first virtual environment.
Examiner disagrees. However, in order to expedite prosecution please see the new mapping above. Kapur teaches determining that the predicted instance of access of the user is within predetermined limits of deviation (meets qualified purchase requirement, see [0368]); determining that a current behavior of the avatar of the user is acceptable (e.g. allow purchase, access to new virtual room, see [0323, 0368]); and providing continued authorization for the user (e.g. access to new virtual room, see [0323]) to access the first virtual environment.
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Pagliuca et al. (US 2024/0408509) discloses customized avatars for use with non-fungible tokens.
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
processor “(2) (software) A computer program that includes the compiling, assembling, translating, and related functions for a specific programming language, for example, Cobol processor, Fortran processor.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <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).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.