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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5 – 9 and 13 - 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection of pending claims on pages 8-12: Applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2A prong 1 and Step 2A prong 2 analysis were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
For Step 2A-Prong 1 starting in p. 9: The Applicant argues that the limitations recited in the claims and its features are not directed to the abstract ideas identified because they do not fall within or are similar to any of the corresponding examples for the subgroups of the abstract ideas identified from the “2019 Revised Guidance” including the updated guidance issued by the USPTO. However, this is unpersuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because, the examples that the MPEP 2106.04 provides are not limited to the examples provided therein. The MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, which further states that the claims are “reciting” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Thus, the abstract ideas identified and maintained herein are recited in at least the claim 1, 9 and 18. Specifically, such recitation is present in the steps of “determining” the owners of each extended reality (XR) objects and “assigning” the XR objects to the “ownership chain” encompass agreements in the form of contracts and/or legal obligations as user’s authentication credentials are required for such XR object ownership (see claims 3 and 11) while ensuring business relations by providing these assigned XR objects in an ownership chain that “simplify the process of trust propagation” (see ¶0035 from Applicant disclosure). Similarly, the steps of “determining” the owners that are engaged in the XR environment from those who are not and “presenting” XR objects while presenting in different colors such differences, these steps are also directed to interactions related to social activities because such XR objects presented to the user in an XR environment are determined to ensure trust interactions between parties with XR objects that are identified and assigned to an “ownership chain” (see ¶0003 from Applicant disclosure).
As for Applicant allegations in p. 11 from Remarks, regarding not reciting mental processes in the claims because “claims clearly require computer functionality that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” and “the human mind cannot practically generate an extended reality environment that is provided to a plurality of devices” were considered but are unpersuasive. Because even though the extended reality (XR) environment provided by the computer and general XR technology cannot be performed mentally and/or pen and paper, at least the steps of “determining” an owner of the XR objects and which user owners are not engaged to further present such differentiations for the XR objects in different colors per owner can still be performed mentally by a human with the aid of a computer and/or other technology (i.e. such as displaying the labeling or tagging of the XR objects). Because these claim limitation steps identified, even if they require at least one of: (B) physical aid (e.g. pen and paper) and/or (C) a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)), can still be performed with the help of physical aid such as generic computer components which does not negate the mental nature of the limitation(s) to present the XR objects.
For Step 2A-Prong 2 starting in p. 12: The Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because “users cannot easily determine if an object of the virtual environment is malicious.” However, the Examiner find these arguments unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees with them because regardless these determinations of who and who’s not an engaging owner (e.g. those who are “users engaged” with the XR environment) of the different XR objects to visually differentiate the XR object from other XR objects, these functions are improving the abstract idea itself (e.g. data being determined and displayed with an emphasis) and not necessarily provide an improvement to the computer functioning for generating secured virtual environments by providing easy determination if objects are “malicious”, as Applicant asserts. Rather, these claim limitations are not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application because they are invoking computers being applied with virtual reality or XR technology to be used as a tool while these are being recited in a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(f)), contrary to the Applicant assertions that the claimed invention is “analogous to example 47, claim 3” (see p. 12 from Remarks). Thus, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding Applicant's arguments against the rejection under 35 USC §103 for the amended/pending claims on pages 13 – 16: Applicant’s argues that the amended limitation step of “presenting” XR objects in different colors visualized that upon determining which owners of a XR object are engaged and those who are not in the XR environment, is not taught by the combination of prior art cited. This argument is not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the Applicant is focusing on each prior art teaching, rather than focusing on the actual language claimed in each claim limitation and how their corresponding limitation steps are different from the prior art teachings while considering the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim. Thus, the Examiner disagrees since at least the prior art of Lopez discloses that “digital artwork” (i.e. XR object in an XR environment) can include the display of its “edition information” using a “dedicated indicator” in the interface region with “an indicator may glow a first assigned color” among other colors that can indicate the digital artwork uniqueness, if it’s “a limited edition”, or if it’s “unlimited and/or collection pieces (e.g. artwork that the user has a right to access but is not owned by the user)”. But also, the “indicator can indicate additional or alternative information” such as “whether a displayed digital artwork is owned or rented” (see C14; L1 – 16; Lopez) which implies that different colors can be assigned to indicate owners of a specific XR object that are engaged and those who are not. Finally, the Examiner notes that the recitation of descriptive material in the claim, directed to further defining which type of colors are indicating XR objects of owners engaged vs owners not engaged does not hold patentable weight. Please, refer to the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section for further details. Due to these reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claim 18, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 1, 9 and 18, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 1 – 8 falls under statutory category of a system, while claims 9 – 17 are directed to a process. Finally, claims 18 – 20 are directed to an article of manufacture, when considering ¶0077 from Applicant disclosure for claim 18, specifically.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 (representative of claims 1 and 9) recites an abstract idea in the following limitations:
generating an extended reality environment;
providing the extended reality environment to a plurality of devices associated with a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users engage with the extended reality environment;
identifying a plurality of extended reality objects present…;
determining an owner of each of the plurality of extended reality objects wherein a first owner owns a first extended reality object of the plurality of extended reality objects, a second owner owns a second extended reality object of the plurality of extended reality objects, and a third owner owns a third extended reality object of the plurality of extended reality objects;
determining that the first owner of the first extended reality object of the plurality of extended reality objects is not one of the plurality of users engaged with the extended reality environment and that the second owner of the second extended reality object and the third owner of the third extended reality object are ones of the plurality of users engaged with the extended reality environment;
in response to determining that the owner of the extended reality object of the plurality of extended reality objects is not one of the plurality of users engaged with the extended reality environment, presenting, via the extended reality environment, the extended reality object in a first color and presenting, via the extended reality environment, the second extended reality object in a second color and the third extended reality object in a third color, wherein the first color the extended reality object from the remaining ones of the plurality of extended reality objects;
creating an ownership chain for the first owner; and
assigning the first extended reality object to the ownership chain.
Generally, these limitations, describe a method and a system for identifying and categorizing user ownership information of extended reality (XR) objects to efficiently assign the XR objects in an ownership chain and visually differentiate them based on their owner. As disclosed in the specification in ¶0004, this invention “provide the ability to identify, at a glance, the security of an extended reality ("XR") environment.” However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) is recited in claim 18 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in the steps of “identifying” XR objects and “determining” the owners of each XR objects and which are not the owners of the XR objects to “create an ownership chain”, and “assign” the XR objects to the chain. Thus, at least the steps of “determining” the owners of each XR objects and “assigning” the XR objects to the “ownership chain” encompass agreements in the form of contracts and/or legal obligations as user’s authentication credentials are required for such XR object ownership (see claims 3 and 11) while ensuring business relations by providing these assigned XR objects in an ownership chain that “simplify the process of trust propagation” (see ¶0035 from Applicant disclosure). Similarly, the steps of “determining” the owners that are engaged in the XR environment from those who are not and “presenting” XR objects while presenting in different colors such differences, these steps are also directed to interactions related to social activities because such XR objects presented to the user in an extended reality environment are determined to ensure trust interactions between parties with XR objects that are identified and assigned to an “ownership chain” (see ¶0003 from Applicant disclosure).
The steps of “identifying a plurality of extended reality objects…”, “determining an owner…” of each XR objects, “determining that the first owner of the first extended reality object…is not one of the plurality of users” and “assigning the first extended reality object to the ownership chain” fall under the abstract idea of mental processes that can be practically be performed in the human mind or in pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because “identifying” XR objects and “determining” the owners of each XR objects and which are not the owners of the XR objects to later “assign” the XR objects to the ownership chain requires observation, evaluation and judgement.
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1, 9 and 18, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of a processor; a memory (from claim 1); ownership chain (from claim 18) and an extended reality environment, a plurality of devices (from claims 1, 9 and 18). These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these claim steps of are recited as being performed by the computer with general virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) technology (see ¶0005 from Applicant’s disclosure). The computer and the general VR/AR technology used are recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for generating the XR environment and XR objects to determine who and who’s not their owners and assign the XR objects ownership data in a chain record. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
As for the steps of “generating an extended reality environment…”, “providing the extended reality environment”, “presenting, via the extended reality environment, the first extended reality object in a first color and presenting, via the extended reality environment, the second extended reality object in a second color and the third extended reality object in a third color…” and “creating an ownership chain for the first owner…” is really nothing more than links to computer implementing the use of ordinary capacity for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components with general XR technology (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)).
Step 2B: For independent claims 1, 9 and 18, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: a processor; a memory (from claim 1); ownership chain (from claim 18) and an extended reality environment, a plurality of devices (from claims 1, 9 and 18). These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the recitation of a computer to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-8, 10-17 and 19 - 20, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2-8, 10-17 and 19 - 20: further describes the abstract idea of the method to identify XR objects’ ownership and the type of XR environments that are applied, the specific ownership data used to uniquely identify owners of XR objects, the type of ownership chains and other functions for removing XR objects when these are identified as unassigned. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of “commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as it encompasses agreements in the form of contracts (e.g. user’s authentication credentials) and/or legal obligations from the XR objects during social activities (e.g. interactions) within virtual environments.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 6 – 8, 14 – 15, 19 and 20, these claims recite the additional elements of a source ownership chain (claims 6 – 7, 14 – 15 and 19) and a destination ownership chain (claims 6, 8, 14, 16 and 19). These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of determining ownership sources of XR objects and commit the XR objects ownership changes/transfers in an ownership chain. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Finally, the additional elements previously mentioned above, are nothing more than descriptive language about the elements that define the abstract idea, and these claims remain rejected under 101 as well.
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.
Claims 1 - 16 and 18 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (U.S. Pub No. 20210357386 A1) in view of Lopez (U.S. Patent No. 11784818 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 18:
This claim set is represented by claim 18
Pratt teaches:
generating an extended reality environment; (In ¶0056; Fig. 2C (252): teaches “At step 252, the user 244 begins immersion with the object” wherein the immersion can be a “virtual reality game,”.)
providing the extended reality environment to a plurality of devices associated with a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users engage with the extended reality environment; (In ¶0051; Fig. 2B – 2C: teaches that the “user 244 may operate, for example, one of the remote devices 204 of FIG. 2A to participate in a virtual environment such as virtual reality game 222 of FIG. 2B”. Refer to ¶0056 wherein the user “may begin interacting, using his remote device, with other players in the virtual reality game and with objects in the virtual reality game” or in a “factory”.)
identifying a plurality of extended reality objects present in an extended reality environment; (In ¶0041; Fig. 2B (228 and 220); Fig. 2C (254): teaches that during a “virtual reality game 222” played by the user (directed to an XR environment in accordance to applicant specs in ¶0023 – 24), the system of the “the AR engine 202” can recognize the user’s “character” picking up a “sword 228”, and add a “block” to be passed to a “ledger to indicate that the character or user now has possession of the sword 228” wherein the added block is written with “data to the second memory 226, either by the user device of the user or by the AR engine 202, along with other necessary identification information and timestamp information”. Refer to ¶0063 and ¶0067 for “step 254” details regarding “check in” virtual items, such as the “sword”. Lastly, see ¶0017 wherein this application can be implemented in other digital objects such as “tools or components or assemblies or other factory elements” within a “factory environment” (for example see ¶0056), which is in accordance to applicant specs in ¶0023.)
determining an owner of each of the plurality of extended reality objects wherein a first owner owns a first extended reality object of the plurality of extended reality objects, a second owner owns a second extended reality object of the plurality of extended reality objects, and a third owner owns a third extended reality object of the plurality of extended reality objects; (In ¶0041; Fig. 2B (228 and 222); Fig. 2C (260): teaches the example that “during game play, the AR engine 202 controls and updates the asset” and “each change need not be reflected in a new block, simply the state of the asset upon entering the game and upon leaving or at a key point such as change in ownership status or a “save point.” Refer to ¶0064 for “step 260” details for determining information about the object (e.g. sword) during game.)
determining that the first owner of the first extended reality object is not one of the plurality of users engaged with the extended reality environment and that the second owner of the second extended reality object and the third owner of the third extended reality object are ones of the plurality of users engaged with the extended reality environment; (In ¶0036: teaches this negative limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), when “participants in the AR system 200 who do not own the object only can see the hash ledger” in order to maintain a “level of privacy and security for users of the AR system 200” which is directed to determining that the owner of the XR object (e.g. tool) is not one of the plurality of users engaged (i.e. present or does not belong), in accordance to the definition given of an owner being “engaged”, in ¶0036 from Applicant disclosure. Refer to ¶0042 and ¶0059 wherein the system can determine and update the ledger with XR objects that were lost/dropped and another user took possession, but is not the owner.)
creating an ownership chain for the first owner; and (In ¶0041; Fig. 2C (278): teaches the creation of an ownership chain for the owner when disclosing that “when the character picks up the sword 228, a block is added to a passed ledger to indicate that the character or user now has possession of the sword 228”. Also, “the change of ownership or possession is recorded as an additional block in the ledger at game time 234.” Refer to ¶0054 wherein upon creating an object “at step 246, a passed ledger 240 and a hash ledger 242 are created for the object”)
assigning the first extended reality object to the ownership chain. (In ¶0058; Fig. 2C (270): teaches that “when a participant such as the user 244 is checking an object into the game, the user 244 gives the AR engine 202 permission to make a next update to the hash ledger 242”. Refer to ¶0067 for details regarding “step 270” wherein the system can allow the user to “check objects or items back into the personal inventory of the user 244” by presenting to the user “blocks corresponding to the objects including the sword 228 and the user 244 verifies that the data in the blocks is correct by writing an additional block to the passed ledger” which is directed to assigning the XR object and other additional XR objects into the ownership chain.)
Pratt does not explicitly teach the abilities of presenting the extended reality (XR) object in a first color and the other XR objects being presented in a second and/or third colors to differentiate the XR objects of other owners engaged in the XR environment from the owner of the first XR object determined. However, Lopez teaches:
in response to determining that the first owner of the first extended reality object is not one of the plurality of users engaged with the extended reality environment, presenting, via the extended reality environment, the first extended reality object in a first color and presenting, via the extended reality environment, the second extended reality object in a second color and the third extended reality object in a third color, wherein the first color indicates that the first extended reality is owned by an owner not engaged in the extended reality environment and wherein the second color and the third color indicate that the second extended reality object and the third extended reality object are owned by different owners that are engaged in the extended reality environment. (In C14; L1 – 16; Fig. 3 (310): teaches that digital artwork and its edition information can be displayed using a “dedicated indicator” in the interface region wherein “an indicator may glow a first assigned color to indicate that a displayed digital artwork is unique, a second assigned color for a limited edition, or a third assigned color for unlimited and/or collection pieces (e.g. artwork that the user has a right to access but is not owned by the user)” which is directed to presenting a second color for objects that are not owned by the user.” Also, “the indicator can indicate additional or alternative information, such as whether a displayed digital artwork is owned or rented (e.g., temporarily available to a user via a subscription service)” which is directed to the descriptive material not holding patentable weight for presenting a first color for objects that are owned by the user owner not engaged, and a second and third colors to indicated different owners that are engaged in the XR environment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pratt to provide the abilities of presenting the extended reality (XR) object in a first color and the other XR objects being presented in a second and/or third colors to differentiate the XR objects of other owners engaged in the XR environment from the owner of the first XR object determined, as taught by Lopez in order to “allow for easy access to specialized kinds of digital content, such as easy access to NFTs at a variety of locations or modifiable content in generative digital artworks” and provide “accurate information about ownership status of a displayed digital artwork” while achieving a “desired user experience”(C2; L38 – 42 and C2 – 3; L49 – 55 and L1 – 3; Lopez).
Regarding claims 2 and 10:
The combination of Pratt and Lopez, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Pratt further teaches:
wherein the extended reality environment comprises a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment. (In ¶0017; Figs.1, 2A and 3: teaches “exemplary embodiments are described in connection with an augmented reality or virtual reality video game”, but can also be “extended to any augmented or virtual environment including, for example, a factory environment”. Also, in ¶0033 the system of “AR engine 202 may implement multiple virtual environments or AR environments” and “each respective AR environment may have its own set of virtual rooms and virtual objects”.)
Regarding claims 3 and 11:
The combination of Pratt and Lopez, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Pratt further teaches:
wherein determining the owner of each of the plurality of extended reality objects comprises determining, based upon extended reality object ownership data associated with each of the plurality of extended reality objects, the owner of each of plurality of extended reality objects. (In ¶0060; Fig. 2B (228 and 222); Fig. 2C (260): teaches that “another user or the AR engine 202 may wish to verify in the future” the “actions or activities” related to an object that was “lost” or “dropped” (see ¶0059) wherein the “AR engine” updated the “ledger 242” with “specific information” written that includes “status information such as a relative strength of a game piece such as the sword 228 or a notation that the object was damaged” (see ¶0058). Refer to ¶0064 for “step 260” details for determining information about the object (e.g. sword) during game.)
Regarding claims 4 and 12:
Pratt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 11, respectively.
Although, Pratt teaches that users can access the AR environments with its “own set of virtual rooms and virtual objects” which are dependable of “permissions and credentials and other factors” (see ¶0033; Pratt), Pratt does not explicitly teach the ability of specifically, XR object ownership data that uniquely identify owners of XR objects based on authentication credentials. However, Lopez further teaches:
wherein the extended reality object ownership data uniquely identifies the owner of each of the plurality of extended reality objects based upon an authentication credential. (In C2; L38 – 42; Fig. 7G: teaches an interface display of an artwork called “Brushes #688” that include metadata details about the creator and “contact address” of the user that owns it as shown in Fig. 7G. The “ownership status” of the NFT can be verified which also reflects “the logged-in user's percentage or share of ownership in the corresponding digital item” (see C19; L55 – 65 for more details) which is directed to identifying owner of each XR reality object based on authentication credentials in accordance to the example given in ¶0028 from Applicant disclosure. Refer to C15 - 16; L54 – 67 and L1 – 11 wherein the user can query the system that manages the NFTs associated with digital artwork that includes metadata with information related to artist name, views or “point-in-time” of a displayed digital artwork that further includes “current ownership” information and refer to C9; L47 – 61 for user account and identifier/security key data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pratt to provide the ability of specifically, XR object ownership data that uniquely identify owners of XR objects based on authentication credentials, as taught by Lopez in order to “allow for easy access to specialized kinds of digital content, such as easy access to NFTs at a variety of locations or modifiable content in generative digital artworks” and provide “accurate information about ownership status of a displayed digital artwork” while achieving a “desired user experience”(C2; L38 – 42 and C2 – 3; L49 – 55 and L1 – 3; Lopez).
Regarding claims 5 and 13:
The combination of Pratt and Lopez, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Pratt further teaches:
creating an ownership chain for the first owner; and (In ¶0041; Fig. 2C (278): teaches the creation of an ownership chain for the owner when disclosing that “when the character picks up the sword 228, a block is added to a passed ledger to indicate that the character or user now has possession of the sword 228”. Also, “the change of ownership or possession is recorded as an additional block in the ledger at game time 234.” Refer to ¶0054 wherein upon creating an object “at step 246, a passed ledger 240 and a hash ledger 242 are created for the object”)
assigning the first extended reality object to the ownership chain. (In ¶0058; Fig. 2C (270): teaches that “when a participant such as the user 244 is checking an object into the game, the user 244 gives the AR engine 202 permission to make a next update to the hash ledger 242”. Refer to ¶0067 for details regarding “step 270” wherein the system can allow the user to “check objects or items back into the personal inventory of the user 244” by presenting to the user “blocks corresponding to the objects including the sword 228 and the user 244 verifies that the data in the blocks is correct by writing an additional block to the passed ledger” which is directed to assigning the XR object into the ownership chain.)
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 19:
Pratt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 5, 13 and 18, respectively.
Pratt further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a request to transfer ownership of the first extended reality object; (In ¶0057; Fig. 2C (238): teaches that “at step 254, when the user operating a user device requests to take possession of an object outside of the gaming environment, the user device writes to the passed ledger 240 a block, as proposed by the AR engine, indicating the desire to check out the object”. Refer to ¶0072 for details of an example with an XR object such as a “tool” and to ¶0036 wherein “the new owner proposes a completed block to the current owner who may approve the block, completing transfer of ownership” during transfer of ownership for specific object.)
determining a source ownership chain and a destination ownership chain; and (In ¶0036; Fig. 2C (241, 240 and 242): teaches that the “AR system 200 operates in conjunction with a split ledger system including a passed ledger and a hash ledger” wherein the “passed ledger 240” is the only ledger that “contains all details of the history of the object, improving security and privacy of the transactions and actions upon the object” (directed to source ownership chain) while the “hash ledger 242” stores “just the resulting hash of the contents of the passed ledger 240” (directed to destination ownership chain) and “participants in the AR system 200 who do not own the object only can see the hash ledger” which “maintains a level of privacy and security for users of the AR system 200”.)
committing a transfer of ownership of the first extended reality object from the source ownership chain to the destination ownership chain. (In ¶0042; Fig. 2C (241, 240 and 242): teaches that the “split ledger including the hash ledger and the passed ledger provides storage of virtual reality details which is persistent and has time-stamped state conditions, and may also be updated in near-real time, such as during a fast-changing virtual reality environment” which is directed to committing transfers of ownership of the XR objects. Also, refer to ¶0047 wherein a “split ledger arrangement including the passed ledger and the hash ledger may be particularly applicable to transactions in an AR environment between a buyer and a seller”.)
Regarding claims 7 and 15:
Pratt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 14, respectively.
Pratt further teaches:
wherein the ownership chain for the first owner is the source ownership chain. (In ¶0061; Fig. 2C (240): teaches a source ownership chain directed to the “passed ledger 240” from the “split ledger” which may “become a relatively large file storing a substantial amount of data” and “only the passed ledger contains all details of the history of the object, improving security and privacy of the transactions and actions upon the object”, in accordance to applicant specs in ¶0006 – 7. Thus, in ¶0036 discloses that “he AR engine 202 or a device of the user who is the owner of the passed ledger can write new blocks to the passed ledger” and “when ownership of the object is transferred, the passed ledger is passed to the new owner with a partial final block” that when it is approved by the initial owner the transfer of ownership is completed and the “new owner is then able to record in the passed ledger future activities with the object”.)
Regarding claims 8 and 16:
Pratt, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 14, respectively.
Pratt further teaches:
wherein the ownership chain for the first owner is the destination ownership chain. (In ¶0061; Fig. 2C (242): teaches a destination ownership chain directed to the “hash ledger 242” from the “split ledger” that “stores just the resulting hash of the contents of the passed ledger 240”. Thus, in ¶0036 discloses that “Participants in the AR system 200 who do not own the object only can see the hash ledger”.)
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (U.S. Pub No. 20210357386 A1) in view of Lopez (U.S. Patent No. 11784818 B2) in further view of Hamilton (U.S. Patent No. 9785909 B2).
Regarding claims 17 and 20:
The combination of Pratt and Lopez, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 9 and 18, respectively.
Pratt teaches the identification of digital objects that are assigned to an owner (¶0041 and ¶0064; Pratt) including digital object information/history (see ¶0045 – 46 and ¶0054 – 55; Pratt) and Lopez visually differentiate the XR objects based on their owner (see C14; L1 – 16; Lopez). But Neither Pratt or Lopez explicitly teach the ability of specifically removing XR objects from the XR environment. However, Hamilton teaches:
removing, by the first extended reality server computer, the extended reality object from the extended reality environment. (In C7; L39 – 65; Fig. 5 (53 and 84): teaches “malicious content propagation prevention tool 53 attempts to remedy malicious content (propagation) caused by set of malicious inventory items 81” through the “assurance component 84” that is configured to “erase a portion of virtual language programming code that is causing the malicious behavior, and replace set of malicious inventory items 81”. In addition, when is not possible to replace the malicious portion of “virtual language programming code” of the item, the “insulating component 84 is configured to replace the malicious inventory items with “good” items, while deleting the malicious item(s)” which is directed to remove the XR object.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pratt and Lopez to provide the ability of removing XR objects from the XR environment, as taught by Hamilton in order to prevent “drain valuable resources from the VU server or the user's client computer, or exploit vulnerabilities in either the server or client code” (C1; L39 – 44; Hamilton) and prevent the “propagation of malicious content in a virtual universe by insulating malicious inventory items from the rest of the virtual universe” (C2; L63 – 66; Hamilton).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwarz (U.S. Patent No. 11270318 B1) is pertinent because it is a “system and method for identifying virtual goods, and in particular, for such a system and method for identifying such virtual goods through a mark.”
Herrity (U.S. Pub No. 20230252733 A1) is pertinent because it “improve the performance of computer systems by displaying blockchain data associated with a three-dimensional digital object within the presentation medium displaying the three-dimensional digital object.”
Herrin (U.S. Pub No. 10671647 B2) is pertinent because it is “provide a system, method, and apparatus for gathering, identifying and detecting reusable assets or resources associated with a user who owns, creates, or is otherwise responsible for the asset or resource by providing an automated agent that is installed on an information handling system to present a list of reusable assets or resources that need to be transferred upon detecting that the associated user changes roles or leaves an organization”
Masuko (U.S. Pub No. 20140153821 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a color determination device, a color determination system, a color determination method, an information recording medium, and a program, and determines, from a character string indicating a color, the color being indicated by the character string.”
Todd (U.S. Pub No. 6127013 A) is pertinent because it “relates generally to labels for identifying and providing characteristic information about an object to which it is adhered and, more specifically, to a coded labeling system consisting of a plurality of label sheets, each sheet including a plurality of columns and each column including a plurality of removable self adhesive labels having indicia printed thereon. The indicia printed on each self adhesive label is used to identify a particular characteristic associated with an object on which it is to be adhered.”
LaMont (U.S. Pub No. 20210264154 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to augmented reality. More specifically, the field of the invention relates to systems, methods, and processes, which authenticate ownership through the use of visual identification, and which further allow for interaction with otherwise inanimate objects via the use of a code thereon.”
Suzuki (U.S. Pub No. 20220327646 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to an information processing apparatus, an information processing system, an information processing method, and a program that perform processing of transferring the ownership of virtual content between users using an augmented reality (PR) image that is displayed by superimposing virtual content on a real object that can be observed in reality.”
Lanier (U.S. Pub No. 20170039770 A1) is pertinent because it is about “techniques for enabling two or more users in a mixed reality environment to interact with one another and/or with virtual content that is presented in the mixed reality environment”
Rice (U.S. Pub No. 20210279695 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to systems and methods for item acquisition by selection of a virtual object placed in a digital environment.”
Ju (U.S. Pub No. 20210201029 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to augmented reality, and more specifically to an augmented reality that allows users to tag objects with virtual tags that may allow owners of the objects to track the object's data.”
Schechter (U.S. Pub No. 20180349568 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to augmented reality platforms and, more particularly, to augmented reality platforms that allow content to be associated with AR objects.”
Takehi (U.S. Pub No. 20230104312 A1) is pertinent because it “provide a technology for making an object existing in a real space and an object to be realized in a virtual space collaborate with each other.”
Pulier (U.S. Pub No. 20170052676 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relate to a virtual object registry and tracking platform. More specifically, the embodiments of the present invention relate to a platform for creating, tracking, modifying, redeeming and terminating unique virtual objects.”
Chuah (U.S. Pub No. 20030014423 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to virtual objects and services.”
Moy (U.S. Pub No. 20210256508 A1) is pertinent because it is “generally directed to systems and methods for distributed ledger-based identity management.”
Fukuchi (U.S. Pub No. 20120210254 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to an information processing apparatus, an information sharing method, a program, and a terminal device.”
Lindlbauer, Changing the Appearance of Real-World Objects by Modifying Their Surroundings (May, 2017) is pertinent because it discusses “an approach to alter the perceived appearance of physical objects by controlling their surrounding space.”
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 Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626