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 .
Acknowledgements
The reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 36 and 46 have been amended. Claims 56-57 are new. Claims 42 and 52 have been canceled. Claims 36-41, 43-51, and 53-57 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 36 and 46 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 36-55. Specifically, the amendments “based at least in part on the determining that the matching of interest score meets the threshold, providing a deep link to a virtual location associated with the first user profile; causing a user interface of a device associated with the second user profile to display an indication of the deep link; and based at least in part on receiving a selection of the deep link, moving the avatar associated with the second user profile to the virtual location” would be considered additional elements. These additional elements are limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine see MPEP 2106.05(b). Providing a deep link via a user interface on a device and moving the avatar in response to a selection of the provided deep link requires a particular machine that is more than a general purpose computer. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 36-55 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-10, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koura et al. U.S. 2016/0196579.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 56 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 56 and 57 recite “determining a virtual location as a location at which an avatar associated with the first user profile is in a first virtual field of view from a position in the virtual environment.” The instant specification does not disclose or suggest determining such specific virtual location. At most, the instant specification discloses guiding the users to meet each other in the virtual world [0054], users come in view of each other [0061], and determining a new location for everyone to virtual meet [0056]. However, determining a virtual location as a location at which an avatar is in a field of view from a position in the virtual environment is a more specific determination of the virtual location than what has been broadly disclosed or suggested in the instant specification. Therefore, the claims contain new matter.
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 40 and 50 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 40 and 50 recite the limitation "the information" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 40 and 50 are dependent from claims 36 and 46, respectively, and claims 40 and 50 are claiming content of the information. However, claims 36 and 46 do not provide any antecedent basis for such information. Therefore, it is unclear how the information is a part of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 57 falls into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 57 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 57 are identified in bold below:
determining a first digital link between a first user profile in a virtual environment and a first crypto wallet;
identifying a first nonfungible token (NFT) of the first crypto wallet;
assigning the first NFT to a first weighted level of a taxonomy tree based at least in part on determining that the first NFT is associated with a first characteristic;
determining a second digital link between a second user profile in the virtual environment and a second crypto wallet;
identifying a second NFT of the second crypto wallet;
assigning the second NFT to a second weighted level in the taxonomy tree based at least in part on determining that the second NFT is associated with the first characteristic and with a second characteristic, wherein the second weighted level is a sublevel of the first weighted level and the second characteristic is a sub-characteristic of the first characteristic;
determining a matching of interest score between the first user profile and the second user profile based at least in part on the assigning of the first NFT to the first weighted level and the assigning of the second NFT to the second weighted level; and
determining a virtual location as a location at which an avatar associated with the first user profile is in a first virtual field of view from a position in the virtual environment;
determining that the matching of interest score meets a threshold; and
based at least in part on the determining that the matching of interest score meets the threshold,
displaying one or more visual guides positioned and configured to guide the avatar associated with the second user profile to the position in the virtual environment,
wherein the position is determined such that at the position the avatar associated with the second user profile is in a second virtual field of view of the avatar associated with the first user profile.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, B-C, E-J, and L recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under mental processes – concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, examples including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Identifying and assigning NFTs, determining a virtual location/position, determining a matching of interest score, and determining that the matching of interest score meets a threshold can all be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using a paper. K recites a limitation that is reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the limitation can be grouped under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, in the form of teaching. Displaying one or more visual guides positioned and configured to guide the avatar is analogous to teaching the user to navigate to the position. Therefore, claim 57 recites abstract ideas that fall under multiple buckets. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 57 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
Limitations in A and D are no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use see MPEP 2106.05(h) because determining a digital link between a user profile in the virtual environment and a crypto wallet has been recited a high-level of generality. Similarly, “in the virtual environment” in H and K has also been recited at a high-level of generality such that the abstract ideas in limitations B-C and E-L are merely software instructions that as an ordered combination with the additional elements amount to no more than a computer that is programmed to carry out the abstract ideas. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract ideas, claim 57 amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract ideas. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 57 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and/or generally linking the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and/or generally linking the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 57 is not patent eligible.
In summary, the claim does not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract ideas into a patent eligible application such that the abstract ideas amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves. The claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim 36-40, 43, 46-50, 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwivedi et al. “Metaverse Beyond the Hype: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Emerging Challenges, Opportunities, and Agenda for Research, Practice and Policy” (herein as “Dwivedi”) in view of Raghavan et al. U.S. 2023/0162253 (herein as “Raghavan”), in view of Yang et al. “Weighted Partonomy-Taxonomy Trees with Local Similarity Measures for Semantic Buyer-Seller Match-Making” (herein as “Yang”), in view of Koura et al. U.S. 2016/0196579 (herein as “Koura”), and further in view of Benedetto U.S. 2024/0181352.
Re Claim 36, Dwivedi discloses a method comprising:
determining a first digital link between a first user profile in a virtual environment and a first crypto wallet (pg. 10, 1st column, 3rd paragraph – “To access a fully customizable account in Decentraland (i.e. a virtual environment), for instance, a user is required to link the account with a hot wallet, which is an account in a cryptocurrency exchange or a website-based wallet”);
identifying a first nonfungible token (NFT) of the first crypto wallet (pg. 10, 1st column, 3rd paragraph – “NFTs and cryptocurrencies stored in a hot wallet are under control of the wallet provider,” pg. 18, 1st column, 2.8.2.2 – “(NFTs) allow consumers to acquire, possess, and trade unique virtual artefacts that are identified through blockchain technology,” allowing consumers/users to acquire, possess, and/or trade NFTs suggests that the NFTs must be identified first);
determining a second digital link between a second user profile in the virtual environment and a second crypto wallet (pg. 10, 1st column, 3rd paragraph – “To access a fully customizable account in Decentraland (i.e. a virtual environment), for instance, a user is required to link the account with a hot wallet, which is an account in a cryptocurrency exchange or a website-based wallet,” pg. 15, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph – “The metaverse can be characterized by a three-dimensional (3D) virtual world that allows users to interact with digital objects and engage in social connections and interactions through avatars,” thereby suggesting a plurality of users in the metaverse with their account/profile linked to their respective hot wallets);
identifying a second NFT of the second crypto wallet (pg. 10, 1st column, 3rd paragraph – “NFTs and cryptocurrencies stored in a hot wallet are under control of the wallet provider,” pg. 18, 1st column, 2.8.2.2 – “(NFTs) allow consumers to acquire, possess, and trade unique virtual artefacts that are identified through blockchain technology,” allowing consumers/users to acquire, possess, and/or trade NFTs suggests that the NFTs must be identified first, pg. 15, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph – “The metaverse can be characterized by a three-dimensional (3D) virtual world that allows users to interact with digital objects and engage in social connections and interactions through avatars,” thereby suggesting a plurality of hot wallets the store NFTs and cryptocurrencies).
However, Dwivedi does not expressly disclose
assigning the first NFT to a first weighted level of a taxonomy tree based at least in part on determining that the first NFT is associated with a first characteristic;
assigning the second NFT to a second weighted level in the taxonomy tree based at least in part on determining that the second NFT is associated with the first characteristic and with a second characteristic, wherein the second weighted level is a sublevel of the first weighted level and the second characteristic is a sub-characteristic of the first characteristic.
Raghavan discloses a method and system for categorizing a product. Specifically, Raghavan discloses
assigning the first NFT to a first weighted level of a taxonomy tree based at least in part on determining that the first NFT is associated with a first characteristic ([0044] – “a product characterization system is provided (i.e. assigning)…The suggestions offer a product category at an appropriate hierarchy level (i.e. a weighted level of a taxonomy tree),” [0049] – “product categories are stored in a hierarchical manner, where, for examples, “shoes” may belong to “apparel and accessories”, and “sneakers” may belong to “shoes”, etc.,” a category is analogous to a characteristic, a product is analogous to an NFT, each level is more granular than the one above, i.e. weighted);
assigning the second NFT to a second weighted level in the taxonomy tree based at least in part on determining that the second NFT is associated with the first characteristic and with a second characteristic, wherein the second weighted level is a sublevel of the first weighted level and the second characteristic is a sub-characteristic of the first characteristic ([0044] – “a product characterization system is provided (i.e. assigning)…The suggestions offer a product category at an appropriate hierarchy level (i.e. a weighted level of a taxonomy tree),” [0049] – “product categories are stored in a hierarchical manner, where, for examples, “shoes” may belong to “apparel and accessories”, and “sneakers” may belong to “shoes”, etc.,” the products are analogous to NFTs, a category is analogous to a characteristic, a hierarchy level is analogous to a weighted level, therefore, in this particular example, “apparel and accessories” is a first characteristic, and “shoes” is a second characteristic, wherein shoes is a sub-characteristic of apparel and accessories. Fig. 4 - for example, a first product, i.e. first NFT, such as a shirt, would be assigned the category “apparel and accessories” 420, and a second product, i.e. second NFT, such as a pair of walking shoes, would be assigned the category “shoes” 430. The walking shoes is associated with the first characteristic, “apparel and accessories” and with a second characteristic, “shoes.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dwivedi’s metaverse environment with the teachings of assigning products to a level of a taxonomy tree in Raghavan. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow potential purchasers to find a product quickly Raghavan, [0093].
However, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan do not explicitly teach
determining a matching of interest score between the first user profile and the second user profile based at least in part on the assigning of the first NFT to the first weighted level and the assigning of the second NFT to the second weighted level.
Yang discloses a tree similarity algorithm for buyer-seller matching. Specifically, Yang discloses
determining a matching of interest score between the first user profile and the second user profile based at least in part on the assigning of the first NFT to the first weighted level and the assigning of the second NFT to the second weighted level (pg. 2, 2. Background – “tree similarity algorithm for buyer-seller matching,” buyer and seller are analogous to the first and second user profiles, pg. 3, 2nd column, 1st paragraph – “our algorithm traverses input trees top-down (root-to-leaf) (i.e. based at least in part on the assigning…) and then computes their similarity (i.e. a matching of interest score) bottom-up”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dwivedi in view of Raghavan’s metaverse environment with product categorization with the teachings of determining a similarity for buyer-seller matching in Yang. One would be motivated to make this combination to remove the disadvantage of the flat representation that cannot describe complex relationship of product attributes, thereby enhancing the buyer-seller match-making process Yang, pg. 1, 1. Introduction, 2nd column, 1st paragraph.
However, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan and Yang do not explicitly teach
determining that the matching of interest score meets a threshold;
based at least in part on the determining that the matching of interest score meets the threshold, providing a deep link to a virtual location associated with the first user profile;
causing a user interface of a device associated with the second user profile to display an indication of the deep link.
Koura discloses dynamic deep links based on user activity. Specifically, Koura discloses
determining that the matching of interest score meets a threshold ([0040] – “deep link provider 254 can select one of the in-network vendors 205…based on a history of activity of a respective user…and/or other characteristic data pertaining to the respective user 260A-B (e.g., demographic data, in market data, interest data, affinity data, and buyer/shopper user model data),” [0035] – “”Interest data” is any data that one or more users can provide that indicate the interests of the respective user. ”Buyer/shopping user model data” is any data that can [be] used to determine whether one or more users fit a particular buyer/shopping user model” since “a threshold” has been broadly recited, any data point can reasonably read upon “meets a threshold”);
based at least in part on the determining that the matching of interest score meets the threshold, providing a deep link to a virtual location associated with the first user profile ([0041] – “create a user-based deep link” to direct user to a web page or location within an app of a vendor of interest, i.e. first user profile, based on user activity/data);
causing a user interface of a device associated with the second user profile to display an indication of the deep link ([0041] – “create a user-based deep link…for user…User 260A can select (e.g., click, touch, hover over, etc.) the user-based deep link,” thereby suggesting it is being displayed on an interface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, and Yang’s metaverse environment with product categorization with the teachings of providing and displaying a deep link based on the matching of interest score meets a threshold in Koura. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide a custom deep link for a particular user to increase the likelihood that the particular user will purchase a product that is specified by the deep link Koura, [0013].
However, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, and Koura do not explicitly teach
based at least in part on receiving a selection of the deep link, moving the avatar associated with the second user profile to the virtual location.
Benedetto discloses instantiation of an interactive entertainment experience. Specifically, Benedetto discloses
based at least in part on receiving a selection of the deep link, moving the avatar associated with the second user profile to the virtual location [0037] – “The users within the metaverse may carry with their respective characters or avatars virtual items,” [0050] – “ways to “deep link”…teleporting to a location of a specific NPC, such as a quest giver, vendor, shopkeeper, etc.,” [0049] – “user need only to interact with an interactive icon in the user interface…which in turn triggers the deep link to a point in a video game.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, and Koura’s metaverse environment with product categorization with the teachings of moving the avatar associated with the second user profile to the virtual location in Benedetto. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 37, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto teach the method of claim 36, and Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto further teach wherein the virtual environment is a metaverse environment Dwivedi, pg. 4, 1st column, 2.1.1.1. Definition.
Re Claim 38, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto teach the method of claim 37, and Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto further teach wherein the matching of interest score between the first user profile and the second user profile is a first matching of interest score, however, Dwivedi do not expressly disclose further comprising:
assigning a third NFT to the second weighted level of the taxonomy tree based at least in part on determining that the third NFT is associated with the first characteristic and with the second characteristic, wherein the third NFT is associated with a third user profile.
Raghavan discloses a method and system for categorizing a product. Specifically, Raghavan discloses
assigning a third NFT to the second weighted level of the taxonomy tree based at least in part on determining that the third NFT is associated with the first characteristic and with the second characteristic (Raghavan, [0044] – “a product characterization system is provided (i.e. assigning)…The suggestions offer a product category at an appropriate hierarchy level (i.e. a weighted level of a taxonomy tree),” [0110] – “entering new product information,” the new product is analogous to a third NFT, the new product could be, for example, another pair of walking shoes, and would therefore be assigned to the second weighted level of the taxonomy tree, “shoes” in Fig. 4, 430, which is associated with both first (“apparel and accessories”) and second (“shoes”) characteristics), wherein the third NFT is associated with a third user profile ([0110] – “merchant (i.e. third user profile) is entering new product information”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dwivedi’s metaverse environment with the teachings of assigning products to a level of a taxonomy tree in Raghavan. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow potential purchasers to find a product quickly Raghavan, [0093].
However, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan do not explicitly teach
determining a second matching of interest score between the second user profile and the third user profile based at least in part on the assignment of the second NFT and of the third NFT to the second weighted level, wherein the second matching of interest score is higher than the first matching of interest score.
Yang discloses a tree similarity algorithm for buyer-seller matching. Specifically, Yang discloses
determining a second matching of interest score between the second user profile and the third user profile based at least in part on the assignment of the second NFT and of the third NFT to the second weighted level, wherein the second matching of interest score is higher than the first matching of interest score (pg. 2, 2. Background – “tree similarity algorithm for buyer-seller matching,” buyer and seller are analogous to second and third user profiles, pg. 6, 4.1 Taxonomic class similarity – “The value of taxonomic class similarity also falls into the real interval [0.0, 1.0] where 0.0 and 1.0 indicates totally different and identical class matching, respectively. As long as a pair of node labels has overlapping semantics, the value of its taxonomic class similarity should be greater than 0.0.” Therefore, a second and third product having overlapping semantics of “shoes” would have a similarity greater than a first and second product not having overlapping semantics – “shirt” and “walking shoes.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dwivedi in view of Raghavan’s metaverse environment with product categorization with the teachings of determining a similarity for buyer-seller matching in Yang. One would be motivated to make this combination to remove the disadvantage of the flat representation that cannot describe complex relationship of product attributes, thereby enhancing the buyer-seller match-making process Yang, pg. 1, 1. Introduction, 2nd column, 1st paragraph.
Re Claim 39, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto teach the method of claim 36, and Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto further teach based at least in part on the matching of interest score, generating for display, on a device associated with the first user profile, an indication of the second NFT (Dwivedi, pg. 27, 1st column, 2.13.2. Opportunities – “creating a digital space of a store market in the metaverse to effectively display all their product lines and depths,” pg. 27, 1st column, 2nd paragraph – “offering NFTs for virtual items such as personal care products, electronics, household decorations, toys, sporting goods, etc.,” pg. 6, 1st column, 1st paragraph – “Head-mounted displays (HMDs),” i.e. device).
Re Claim 40, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto teach the method of claim 36, and Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto further teach wherein the information comprises a visual cue that directs the avatar associated with the second user profile to a virtual location of an avatar associated with the first user profile (Benedetto, [0049] – “interactive icon” is analogous to a visual cue, interacting with the interactive icon triggers the deep link to a point in the video game, thereby directing the avatar to a virtual location).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, and Koura’s metaverse environment with product categorization with the teachings of a visual cue that directs the avatar associated with the second user profile to a virtual location in Benedetto. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 43, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto teach the method of claim 36, and Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto further teach wherein the first characteristic associated with the first NFT is determined based at least in part on metadata associated with the first NFT (Raghavan, [0110] – “product information” is analogous to metadata. The product characterization is based on the product information).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dwivedi’s metaverse environment with the teachings of determining a product’s characterization based on the product information in Raghavan. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow potential purchasers to find a product quickly Raghavan, [0093].
Re Claims 46-50, and 53, they are the system claims of method claims 36-40 and 43, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as method claims 36-40 and 43. Furthermore, Dwivedi discloses implementing the virtual environments using computer(s), i.e. circuitry, pg. 28, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph and devices pg. 28, 2nd column, 4th paragraph. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 41, 44, 51, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwivedi et al. “Metaverse Beyond the Hype: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Emerging Challenges, Opportunities, and Agenda for Research, Practice and Policy” (herein as “Dwivedi”) in view of Raghavan et al. U.S. 2023/0162253 (herein as “Raghavan”), in view of Yang et al. “Weighted Partonomy-Taxonomy Trees with Local Similarity Measures for Semantic Buyer-Seller Match-Making” (herein as “Yang”), in view of Koura et al. U.S. 2016/0196579 (herein as “Koura”), and in view of Benedetto U.S. 2024/0181352 as applied to claims 36 and 46 above, and further in view of Jakobsson et al. U.S. 2023/0009304 (herein as “Jakobsson”).
Re Claim 41, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto teach the method of claim 36, however, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto do not explicitly teach further comprising:
based at least in part on the matching of interest score, generating for display, on a device associated with the first user profile, an indication of the second NFT in association with the avatar associated with the second user profile.
Jakobsson discloses systems and techniques to apply NFT content to immersive environment generation. Specifically, Jakobsson discloses
based at least in part on the matching of interest score, generating for display, on a device associated with the first user profile, an indication of the second NFT in association with the avatar associated with the second user profile ([0418] – “When looking in the direction Alice is located in, Bob and Cindy may see small icons and/or avatars representing Alice where Alice is determined to be located,” [0419] – “Alice may create a policy such that Cindy can listen to a portion and/or all of Alice’s music NFT library,” i.e. an indication of the second NFT).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto’s metaverse environment with the teachings of displaying an avatar and an indication of the associated NFT in Jakobsson. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable issuance of NFTs by verified users and allow users to obtain and conduct transactions with NFTs Jakobsson, [0159], thereby increasing access to real world items while protecting user privacy Jakobsson, [0157], [0159].
Re Claim 44, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto teach the method of claim 36, however, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto do not explicitly teach further comprising:
based at least in part on the matching of interest score, designating a server; and
managing by the designated server interactions of the first user profile with the second user profile.
Jakobsson discloses systems and techniques to apply NFT content to immersive environment generation. Specifically, Jakobsson discloses
based at least in part on the matching of interest score, designating a server ([0221] – ”Available access rights may be determined by digital rights management (DRM) modules 1320 of wallets 1310,” “DRM modules 1320 in some embodiments may use one or more key to communicate with a DRM server,” DRM modules in communication with the DRM server are collectively analogous to the designated server); and
managing by the designated server interactions of the first user profile with the second user profile ([0221] – “the DRM modules 1320 may include code use for performing sensitive transactions for wallet (i.e. interactions between first and second user profiles),” “said systems (DRM systems)…communicate with and register with DRM servers”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto’s metaverse environment with the teachings of designating a server and managing interactions by the server in Jakobsson. One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure the content and sensitive transactions are secure and executed in a trusted environment Jakobsson, [0221].
Re Claims 51 and 54, they are the system claims of method claims 41 and 44, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as method claims 41 and 44. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 45 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwivedi et al. “Metaverse Beyond the Hype: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Emerging Challenges, Opportunities, and Agenda for Research, Practice and Policy” (herein as “Dwivedi”) in view of Raghavan et al. U.S. 2023/0162253 (herein as “Raghavan”), in view of Yang et al. “Weighted Partonomy-Taxonomy Trees with Local Similarity Measures for Semantic Buyer-Seller Match-Making” (herein as “Yang”), in view of Koura et al. U.S. 2016/0196579 (herein as “Koura”), and in view of Benedetto U.S. 2024/0181352 as applied to claims 36 and 46 above, and further in view of Cella et al. U.S. 2022/0366494 (herein as “Cella”).
Re Claim 45, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto teach the method of claim 36, however, Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto do not explicitly teach further comprising assigning a trustworthiness rating for the first user profile based at least in part on an amount of time an NFT is displayed on a host site after execution of an NFT transaction.
Cella discloses a market orchestration system for facilitating electronic transactions. Specifically, Cella discloses
assigning a trustworthiness rating for the first user profile based at least in part on an amount of time an NFT is displayed on a host site after execution of an NFT transaction ([1027] – “generating and tracking a consensus trust score,” “The consensus trust score may be a number…that indicates a likelihood that the blockchain address is involved in fraudulent activity,” [0139] – “consensus trust scores based on the reputation values,” [1040] – “reputation values may be a function of the amount of data…stored at a node and the amount of time for which the data is stored,” which is analogous to amount of time an NFT is displayed on a host site. The instant specification suggests in [0141] that the amount of time the displayed NFT is displayed can be representative of issues surrounding centralized file storage. Therefore, since Cella discloses determining a trust score based on the amount of time for which data is stored, it would be reasonable to rely upon such disclosure of Cella to teach the broad criterion set forth in the claim limitation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dwivedi in view of Raghavan, Yang, Koura, and Benedetto’s metaverse environment with the teachings of generating and assigning a trust score for blockchain addresses in Cella. One would be motivated to make this combination to safeguard against fraud while preserving user anonymity and autonomy Cella, [1027].
Re Claim 55, it is the system claim of method claim 45. It recites similar distinguishing features as method claim 45. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Statement Regarding the Prior Art
Examiner’s search did not show where the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed invention of claims 56 and 57. Specifically, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the following limitations in combination with the method steps of claim 36 or the method steps of claim 57.
determining a virtual location as a location at which an avatar associated with the first
user profile is in a first virtual field of view from a position in the virtual environment;
determining that the matching of interest score meets a threshold; and
based at least in part on the determining that the matching of interest score meets the
threshold, displaying one or more visual guides positioned and configured to guide the avatar
associated with the second user profile to the position in the virtual environment, wherein the
position is determined such that at the position the avatar associated with the second user profile is in a second virtual field of view of the avatar associated with the first user profile.
Hoots et al. U.S. 2020/0233916 discloses navigation data that can include data that guides a user from a current location to a location of an inventory item of interest of the user [0091]. However, Hoots does not disclose that the navigation data is provided based on determining that the matching of interest score meets the threshold. Furthermore, Hoots does not disclose determining a virtual location as a location at which an avatar associated with the first user profile is in a first virtual field of view from a position in the virtual environment, and wherein the position is determined such that at the position the avatar associated with the second user profile is in a second virtual field of view of the avatar associated with the first user profile.
Therefore, no prior art alone or in combination teaches or suggests the claimed inventions of claims 56 and 57.
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698