DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to the independent claims 1,11 and 18 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 11 against the references individually RE the limitations of “obtaining information about a real-world environment of a user that is interacting within a metaverse environment, wherein the information includes at least one of one or more attributes of the user in the real-world environment or one or more characteristics of a physical space of the user in the real-world environment; determining whether the information about the real-world environment of the physical space satisfies a policy associated with a metaverse application, wherein the policy defines one or more real-world conditions that the physical space is to satisfy for having the user interact in one or more virtual environments rendered by the metaverse application” that “The references alone or in combination do not teach, suggest, or disclose obtaining one or more characteristics of the physical space that are to satisfy the user interaction in a virtual environment…. Qian describes user-defined context conditions for enabling a particular device (e.g., to turn on music) or an application (e.g., a recipe application) but does not disclose or suggest real- world rules for user interactions in a virtual environment. Qian does not describe characteristics of a physical space and/or user interactions in the virtual environment…. Andrews describes launching the IHS in a physical environment and data access and rules for the IHS. However, Andrews does not describe interaction with the IHS in a physical environment, nor does Andrews describe how the IHS is translated to a virtual environment. Further, Andrews describes that the IHS may be present at a geographical (physical) location, and the memory (and/or a hardware processor) may acknowledge the physical location or a change in the physical location of the IHS. Andrews describes that the IHS may communicate location information with the workspace orchestration service. See Andrews at paragraph [0135]. However, Andrews does not describe obtaining one or more characteristics of the hardware to determine if the characteristics satisfy a policy associated with a metaverse application, wherein the policy defines one or more real-world conditions that the physical space is to satisfy. Andrews in combination with Qian also does not teach the interaction of characteristics in physical environment and metaverse application.”. In response, the examiner contests that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here Qian clear teaches obtaining information about a real-world environment of a user that is interacting within a metaverse environment, wherein the information includes at least one of one or more attributes of the user in the real-world environment or one or more characteristics of a physical space of the user in the real-world environment in as different user and physical environment contexts/clue/input eg, [0057] “a virtual assistant, which can provide information or services to a user based on user input, contextual awareness (such as clues from the physical environment or clues from user behavior”, [0059] “the virtual assistant application 130 receives or obtains input from a user, the physical environment, a virtual reality environment, or a combination thereof via different modalities.”, mapping the context information 510 (e.g., vision, sounds, location, sensor data, etc.) detected or obtained by the client system to launch a policy based application in XR environment [0114] as shown in FIGs. 5A-B.
Qian further teaches determining whether the information about the real-world environment satisfies a policy associated with a metaverse application, wherein the policy defines one or more real-world conditions in one or more virtual environments rendered by the metaverse application and configuring the metaverse environment based on determining whether the information about the real-world environment of the physical space satisfies the policy in Figs 5A-D, 11, [0064]-[0065], [0100], [0115], [0124], [0134] [0133], [0273], [0321] with many examples wherein the rule or policy generator 860 allows the user to easily add in cognitive states, tasks, and social context to a rule or policy, for example, as part of the conditions for the rule or policy… The cognitive states, tasks, and social context are automatically detected from a combination of sensors, wearable devices, image capturing device, audio capturing devices, etc.. For example physical environmental context condition “alone” in Fig 5B, users “increasing heartate” [0181] etc are identical to applicant’s own disclosure in [0014] “A metaverse exercise application might need the user to maintain a heart rate below a target level to continue using this application. A financial institution may require their staff to be alone in the room.”.
Qian is silent RE: that the physical space is to satisfy for having the user interact in the one or more virtual environments. However Andrews teaches in Figs 2, 5#550 (reproduced here), [0035]-[0036], [0052]-[0055], [0103], [0135] etc in order to provide secure environment with dynamic workspace configuration based on the physical space contexts in an XR environment, wherein user and physical environment contexts are monitored and evaluated same as Qian, further imposing additional rules/conditions for the physical space to satisfy based on calculated risk score to allow/restrict user’s access to the application for user interaction. For example [0036] “the failure to detect an authenticated user of the IHS 100 within a proximity of the IHS 100 may result in a change in the security profile of IHS 100, thus triggering a re-evaluation of the security risk of workspaces operating on IHS 100. Similar re-evaluation may be triggered based on the detection of additional individuals in proximity to IHS 100.” [0113] “display confidentiality: 10 (high, “shoulder surfers” may read datafile from an adjacent seat or table nearby in a public location);” [0135] “Any detected changes in the physical environment of the IHS may be reported, at block 530, to the workspace orchestration service. .. detect when the user is present in proximity to the IHS and may also detect the presence of additional individuals in close proximity to the IHS. In such embodiments, the detection of additional individuals, and any available identity information associated with those individuals, may be reported to the workspace orchestration service. In some scenarios, continued access to confidential data may be contingent on the user providing additional authentication information when additional individuals are detected in proximity to the IHS. In other scenarios, the use of external displays may be disabled by a workspace in response to the detection of additional individuals in proximity to the IHS.” This is also identical to a condition that the physical space is to satisfy for having the user interact in the one or more virtual environments that applicant’s own disclosure in [0014] “A financial institution may require their staff to be alone in the room.”.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues in page 12 RE the limitations of claim 5 that “Andrews in combination with Qian does not suggest the various attributes and/or characteristics of the physical space which are used to determine if the physical space satisfies a policy of the metaverse application. In addition, Andrews in combination with Qian does not suggest attributes of a user in the physical space.” In response, the examiner contests that both Qian and Andrews describe many of the various attributes and/or characteristics of the physical space wherein the claim only requires only one. For example Qian teaches an environment-based condition for the physical space including one or more of: presence of one or more other users or objects in the physical space, or temperature in the physical space, a context-based condition for the physical space, or a user-based condition including one or more of: a physical attribute of the user, a qualification-based attribute of the user, or a co-location of the user and at least one other user of the metaverse application, wherein the physical attribute includes at least one of a physical capability of the user, a physical feature of the user, clothing worn by the user, or an equipment in the physical space (Figs 5, 13, [0057], [0114]-[0116] “a time for affordances, … workday, evening, not occupied with others”, [0125] “The context of these events 645 and activities acquired by the acquisition unit 660 may include bedroom, morning, lights, clothes, closet in bedroom, waking up, kitchen, lights, media player, car keys, leaving house, etc.”, [0167]-[0168] “To determine the current context, the architecture 800 can observe the user 820 behavior (e.g., user activity, user biometrics, etc.), observe the surrounding environment (e.g., devices powered on, other users in the proximity, etc.), gather local information from one or more data sources (e.g., date, time, weather, etc.) and make a mode predication. The current context can include a level of activity or availability of the user, a time of day at the location of the user 820,… current context surrounding the user 820. In some embodiments, the modes can be based on coarse context (e.g., time of day, day of the week, calendar date, etc.) and coarse user state (e.g., user browsing the Internet, user working, user exercising, etc.).”, [0181]-[0182] “initial events (or contextual events), conditions, actions, or other programming to be used for building or modifying the generic rule or policy into a customized rule or policy fitting the task or goal desired by the user …. the user alone, or only when the user is not rushing or distracted… the user is reading an increased temperature associated with increased heartrate… temperature of a thermostat,… “check the weather when I get out of the door”, “turn on the security system when I get out of the door”, “check the key when I get out of the door” ). In addition Andrews teaches many of the claimed “an environment-based condition for the physical space including presence of one or more other users or objects in the physical space, security state of the physical space, a context-based condition for the physical space, or a user-based condition including one or more of: a physical attribute of the user, a qualification-based attribute of the user, or a co-location of the user and at least one other user of the metaverse application” (Figs 3-5, [0057] “authentication factors used to identify user 201, the location of IHS 100, a role or other group classifications associated with user 201,… use of attestable hardware by IHS 100, supported degree of workspace isolation by IHS 100, etc.”, [0059] “the context of user's 201 actions combined with the productivity and security context in which the workspace will operate. The productivity and security targets may also be based on user's 201 behavioral analytics, IHS 100 telemetry and/or environmental information (e.g., collected via sensors 112)”, [0119] “The identity information for the user may be collected… a privilege status classification associated with a user (e.g., admin, guest, etc.”, [0135] “detect when the user is present in proximity to the IHS and may also detect the presence of additional individuals in close proximity to the IHS. In such embodiments, the detection of additional individuals, and any available identity information associated with those individuals” etc).
Therefore as clearly set forth above, the applied references Qian and Andrews not only satisfy the claimed requirement of the independent claims 1,11 and 18, also identical to Applicant’s own disclosure. In addition Qian and Andrews satisfies the claimed requirement of the independent claims of dependent claim 5. Hence rejection of the claims are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9-20, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al (US 20240078004 A1) and further in view of Andrews et al (US 20210135943 A1).
RE claim 1, Qian teaches A method (abstract, Fig 5A) comprising:
obtaining information about a real-world environment of a user that is interacting within a metaverse environment, wherein the information includes at least one of one or more attributes of the user in the real-world environment or one or more characteristics of a physical space of the user in the real-world environment (Figs 5A-B, [0057], [0114]);
determining whether the information about the real-world environment satisfies a policy associated with a metaverse application, wherein the policy defines one or more real-world conditions in one or more virtual environments rendered by the metaverse application (Figs 5A-D, [0115], [0124], [0133], [0064]); and
configuring the metaverse environment based on determining whether the information about the real-world environment of the physical space satisfies the policy (Figs 5,11, [0115], [0134], [0273], [0321], [0065], [0100]).
Qian is silent RE: that the physical space is to satisfy for having the user interact in the one or more virtual environments.
However Andrews teaches in Figs 2, 5#550, [0035]-[0036], [0052]-[0055], [0103], [0135] etc in order to provide secure environment with dynamic workspace configuration based on the physical space contexts. This can be equally applied in Qian to impose additional physical space rules to allow/restrict user’s access to the metaverse application for further user interaction, as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, for applications that need secure access, as an application design choice.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Qian a system and method that the user and/or the physical space are to satisfy for having the user interact in one or more virtual environments rendered by for the metaverse application, as set forth above applying Andrews, in order to secure/restrict access to the one or more virtual environments rendered by the metaverse application imposing additional physical space rules and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches wherein configuring the metaverse environment includes: based on determining that the information about the real-world environment satisfies each of the one or more real-world conditions defined in the policy, performing one or more of: installing the metaverse application to render one or more virtual environments of the metaverse application; executing the metaverse application to immerse the user within the one or more virtual environments rendered by the metaverse application; or enabling or disabling at least one feature of the metaverse application that is configured to render the one or more virtual environments (Qian Figs 5,11, [0115], [0124], [0133], [0134], [0273], [0321], [0064]-[0065], and Andrews Figs 5-6, [0017]-[0018], [0135]).
RE claim 3, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches wherein the information about the real-world environment is obtained by monitoring the user and the physical space that surrounds the user in the real-world environment while the user is interacting within the metaverse environment, and further comprising: based on determining that the information about the real-world environment no longer satisfies each of the one or more real-world conditions defined in the policy reconfiguring the metaverse application by performing one or more of: disabling a first feature of the metaverse application, enabling a second feature of the metaverse application, or terminating or restricting access to one or more virtual environments rendered by the metaverse application (Qian Figs 5, 13, [0264] and Andrews Figs 5-6, [0017]-[0018], [0135]).
RE claim 4, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches wherein obtaining the information about the real-world environment includes: obtaining a plurality of data streams from a plurality of sensors that are configured to monitor activity of the user in the real-world environment and the physical space in which the user is interacting within the metaverse environment (Qian Figs 5A-B, [0050], [0114]).
RE claim 5, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches wherein the one or more real-world conditions defined in the policy include at least one of: an environment-based condition for the physical space including one or more of: size of the physical space, presence of one or more other users or objects in the physical space, security state of the physical space, or temperature in the physical space, a context-based condition for the physical space, or a user-based condition including one or more of: a physical attribute of the user, a qualification-based attribute of the user, or a co-location of the user and at least one other user of the metaverse application, wherein the physical attribute includes at least one of a physical capability of the user, a physical feature of the user, clothing worn by the user, or an equipment in the physical space (Qian Figs 5, 13, [0057], [0114]-[0116] “a time for affordances, … workday, evening, not occupied with others”, [0125] “The context of these events 645 and activities acquired by the acquisition unit 660 may include bedroom, morning, lights, clothes, closet in bedroom, waking up, kitchen, lights, media player, car keys, leaving house, etc.”, [0167]-[0168] “To determine the current context, the architecture 800 can observe the user 820 behavior (e.g., user activity, user biometrics, etc.), observe the surrounding environment (e.g., devices powered on, other users in the proximity, etc.), gather local information from one or more data sources (e.g., date, time, weather, etc.) and make a mode predication. The current context can include a level of activity or availability of the user, a time of day at the location of the user 820,… current context surrounding the user 820. In some embodiments, the modes can be based on coarse context (e.g., time of day, day of the week, calendar date, etc.) and coarse user state (e.g., user browsing the Internet, user working, user exercising, etc.).”, [0181]-[0182] “initial events (or contextual events), conditions, actions, or other programming to be used for building or modifying the generic rule or policy into a customized rule or policy fitting the task or goal desired by the user …. the user alone, or only when the user is not rushing or distracted… the user is reading an increased temperature associated with increased heartrate… temperature of a thermostat,… “check the weather when I get out of the door”, “turn on the security system when I get out of the door”, “check the key when I get out of the door” ). In addition Andrews teaches many of the claimed “an environment-based condition for the physical space including presence of one or more other users or objects in the physical space, security state of the physical space, a context-based condition for the physical space, or a user-based condition including one or more of: a physical attribute of the user, a qualification-based attribute of the user, or a co-location of the user and at least one other user of the metaverse application” (Figs 3-5, [0057] “authentication factors used to identify user 201, the location of IHS 100, a role or other group classifications associated with user 201,… use of attestable hardware by IHS 100, supported degree of workspace isolation by IHS 100, etc.”, [0059] “the context of user's 201 actions combined with the productivity and security context in which the workspace will operate. The productivity and security targets may also be based on user's 201 behavioral analytics, IHS 100 telemetry and/or environmental information (e.g., collected via sensors 112)”, [0119] “The identity information for the user may be collected… a privilege status classification associated with a user (e.g., admin, guest, etc.”, [0135] “detect when the user is present in proximity to the IHS and may also detect the presence of additional individuals in close proximity to the IHS. In such embodiments, the detection of additional individuals, and any available identity information associated with those individuals” etc).).
RE claim 6, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches wherein determining whether the information about the real-world environment satisfies the policy includes: determining whether the physical space of the user in the real-world environment satisfies each condition related to the physical space defined in the policy based on the plurality of data streams; and determining whether the one or more attributes of the user in the real-world environment satisfy each of the user-based condition defined in the policy based on the plurality of data streams (Qian Figs 5, 13, [0115], [0124], [0133], [0064]).
RE claim 8, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches wherein the one or more real-world conditions defined in the policy include: at least one first condition defined by a provider of the metaverse application, at least one second condition defined by an enterprise of the user and at least one third condition defined by a regulatory entity associated with the metaverse application (Qian Figs 5, 13, [0114]-[0115], [0118], [0172], Andrews Fig 5, [0095]).
RE claim 9, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches wherein the one or more real-world conditions are defined in a machine-readable schema that includes one or more real-world requirement enumerations, one or more associated configuration actions, and one or more assessment timings, for installing, executing, or enabling features in the metaverse application (Qian Figs 5, 13, [0114], [0181]-[0183]).
RE claim 10, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches wherein determining whether the information about the real-world environment satisfies the policy includes: determining that the information about the real-world environment does not satisfy at least one real-world condition defined in the policy (Qian [0064], [0133]);
and selecting one or more features of the metaverse application to enable based on a number and type of the one or more real-world conditions that are satisfied (Qian [0230], [0232]. In addition Andrews Figs 5-6, [0075], [0095], [0119], [0125], [0128]-[0129], [0131], [0146], [0148] etc configuring/changing the workspace dynamically with a suitable level/features based on the risk score).
RE claim 23, Qian as modified by Andrews teaches further comprising: monitoring the real-world environment of the user while the user is immersed in the one or more virtual environments rendered by the metaverse application (Qian Figs 5, 13, [0264] and Andrews Figs 2,5, [0035]);
determining presence of one or more other users or objects in the physical space based on monitoring the real-world environment and restricting access to a virtual environment of the one or more virtual environments rendered by the metaverse application based on a spatial proximity of the one or more other users or objects in the physical space to the user (Andrews Figs 5-6, [0036]).
Claims 11-15 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Qian teaches An apparatus comprising: a communication interface to enable communication with devices operating to provide a metaverse environment; and a processor to perform operations (Figs 1-2, [0148] ).
Claims 18-20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-3, and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Qian teaches One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions ([0018]-[0019]).
Claims 22, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Qian as modified by Andrews, and further in view of Faulkner et al (US 20220092862 A1).
RE claim 22, Qian as modified by Andrews is silent RE wherein the policy includes the one or more characteristics of the physical space defined by a provider of the metaverse application as a real-world condition of the physical space that satisfies a plurality of movements that are rendered by the user in the physical space for interacting in the one or more virtual environments of the metaverse application.
However Faulkner teaches in abstract, [0011], [0033], [0270].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Qian as modified by Andrews a system and method wherein the policy includes the one or more characteristics of the physical space defined by a provider of the metaverse application as a real-world condition of the physical space that satisfies a plurality of movements that are rendered by the user in the physical space for interacting in the one or more virtual environments of the metaverse application, as suggested by Faulkner, in order to ensure user safe movement in the physical space and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user
RE claim 24, Qian as modified by Andrews is silent RE wherein determining whether the information about the real- world environment satisfies the policy includes: determining whether the physical space of the user satisfies one or more spatial attributes related to a user movement in the physical space for interacting in the metaverse application.
However Faulkner teaches in abstract, [0011], [0033], [0270].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Qian as modified by Andrews a system and method wherein determining whether the information about the real- world environment satisfies the policy includes: determining whether the physical space of the user satisfies one or more spatial attributes related to a user movement in the physical space for interacting in the metaverse application, as suggested by Faulkner, in order to ensure user safe movement in the physical space and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614