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
Due to communications filed 9/15/26, the following is a non-final office action. Claims 1, 9, 15 are amended. Claims 6-7 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/15/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC $101
3.35 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 1-5, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (I.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 9 and 15, recite a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite recites the abstract idea of analyzing and evaluating information regarding participant interaction, generating and ranking questions based on the analysis, comparing current questions with previously analyzed questions, determining whether sufficient questions are being asked, and determining factors associated with emotional effectiveness, which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. In particular, the limitations of analyzing historic collaborative events, generating a knowledge corpus, identifying and ranking questions based on contextual information, comparing questions, determining that participants are not asking sufficient questions, and determining emotional-effectiveness factors constitute observations, evaluations, comparisons, and judgments that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claims 1, 9 and 15 are not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of a processor set, an AI model, a metaverse platform, a three-dimensional virtual environment, and rendering and controlling a dummy virtual avatar merely implements the identified analysis and resulting determination in a particular technological environment. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, AI-model operation, virtual-world technology, avatar-rendering technology, or another technical field. Rather, the additional elements apply the analysis to facilitate interaction during a virtual event. Merely using a computer or a particular technological environment to perform an abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application.
Finally, claims 1, 9 and 15 do not recite an inventive concept. The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. The processor set, AI model, metaverse platform, three-dimensional virtual environment, and rendering and control of a virtual avatar are recited as generic technological components performing their stated functions and do not, as claimed, provide a technological improvement beyond implementing the identified abstract analysis. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8, 10-14, and 16-20 are also directed to same grouping of mental processes. The additional elements of the computer-implemented method in claims 2-5 and 8; computer program product in claims 10-14; and system in claims 16-20, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
6. 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(s) 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYA (JP 2024067914 A) and further in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1), and further in view of GIARD (WO 1156828 A1), and further in view of Zavesky et al (US 20230410159 A1).
As per claim 1, TAYA discloses:
wherein the metaverse collaborative event takes place in a three-dimensional space in a virtual world and the participants and presenter are visible to each other in the three-dimensional space, (TAYA (JP 2024067914 A)The virtual space here is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional virtual space configured on a network (on a computer) such as the metaverse. Online conferences include conferences, lectures, classes, etc. that are conducted online using images, such as video conferences and online classes. In this embodiment, virtual spaces and online conferences are collectively referred to as "virtual spaces, etc." Also, virtual places and events set as virtual spaces, etc., and virtual rooms and meeting places for online conferences, etc. are referred to as "virtual events." Also, images for displaying virtual events on the screen D of the terminal device 20 are referred to as "event images);
determining, by the processor set, a plurality of factors associated with emotional effectiveness by utilizing the AI model (TAYA (JP 2024067914 A): when a specific movement or other behavior is performed, or when information such as concentration or emotions is obtained through behavior analysis. This electronic information is accumulated in the memory unit 12 of the server device 10 via the network N. This accumulated information may be data after data analysis. These analyses may use Al such as machine learning and deep learning);
Taya does not disclose the following limitations, however, Solomon discloses:
analyzing, by a processor set, historic metaverse collaborative events based on application of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, (Solomon: [0049] FIG. 4 illustrates how the advanced response generator is expanded into the learning system. The advance response generator adds the functions of searching the student profile database for history on the student's interactions with the Expert Avatar, as well as adding the learning manager functions to assist in identifying the appropriate query and response match);
generating, by the processor set, a knowledge corpus based on the analysis of the historic metaverse collaborative events, (Solomon: [0037] Authoring manager software may also be employed to provide automatic generation of an initial primary knowledge base; [0038] Unanticipated, but important, queries that students have previously made (and resulted in a response from the Expert Avatar obtained from the search of a knowledge base consisting of general information related to the course such as biographies, web pages, encyclopedia entries and research papers) would be added to the primary knowledge base for continuous improvement of the system);
wherein the knowledge corpus comprises data defining types of questions asked at metaverse collaborative events based on combinations of event types and participant profiles, the questions being ranked by the AI model based on contextual analysis, (Solomon et al (US 20170206797 A1):[0019] The method employs: (1) a primary knowledge base of anticipated queries and responses for each specific Expert Avatar and its related subject matter; (2) a learning manager database comprising a set of learning goals, ranking of query importance and test questions and answers...; (4) an automated system for generating alias queries that represent different ways of asking the same question including alias queries that are composed of variably-weighted words as well as symbols to indicate flexible matching to represent the non key word components of the query... a student profile database which can be accessed by the teacher/instructor for a formative assessment of the student's progress and by the student to review progress in achieving the learning goals; [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the system employs a first database comprised of two stored knowledge bases: (1) a primary knowledge base of anticipated student questions with the Expert Avatar responses, plus graphics, simulations, voice files, videos, pictures, Expert Avatar movements, etc., to complement the responses; [0035] (3) perform an artificial intelligence comparison of the query to a pre-prepared primary Expert Avatar knowledge base of anticipated queries and text responses to find the first or best match to the student's query, the artificial intelligence system employing a machine learning solution capable of a series of comparisons and qualitative filters...employing neural networks or other self-enhancing mechanisms that provide contextual comparisons to a database; (6) providing accompanying charts, graphs, Expert Avatar behaviors (gestures, facial expressions, actions), simulations, videos and other visual materials to enhance the teaching and communication of the core meaning in the relayed message; [0037] Authoring manager software may also be employed to provide automatic generation of an initial primary knowledge base... Each question will be tagged with key words, and a question type such as who, when, what, where, why, how, opinion, advice, explain, etc., to facilitate the generation of alias questions that have the same intent. To support the learning manager, each entry will be ranked in importance with respect to the learning goals, from an important or required goal to a non-important or frivolous goal);
comparing, by the processor set, questions asked during a metaverse collaborative event with questions from the generated knowledge corpus, (Solomon (Abstract: The avatar's responses are based on artificial intelligence comparisons between the student queries and a knowledge base of anticipated questions, responses and learning goals. An authoring manager system employs natural language processing to identify an underlying meaning in the student's query and to add semantically equivalent questions in the knowledge base and internet searches to aid in compiling the list of anticipated questions. A student profile is stored containing student information and a history of the student's interaction with the avatar. Learning manager software, using the learning goals in the knowledge base and a record of the conversation, can compare and assess the student's progress to the learning goals).
in response to the comparing, determining, by the processor set, that participants in the metaverse collaborative event are not asking sufficient questions to a presenter of the metaverse collaborative event; in response to the determining that the participants are not asking sufficient questions, causing a metaverse platform to render a dummy virtual avatar in the three-dimensional space of the metaverse collaborative event and controlling the rendered dummy virtual avatar to ask a question selected from the generated knowledge corpus and to display and emotional response corresponding to the plurality of factors during the metaverse collaborative event, (Solomon: [0020] An important innovation of the invention are the learning manager functions which compare the conversation log to the learning goals (that are also included in the primary knowledge base) to create a formative assessment of the student's progress, which is then stored in the student profile database for access by the teacher and student. Based on the student's progress the learning manager may provide suggestions or recommendations through the Expert Avatar of additional queries that the student should make or on topics that the student might like to know about, provide guidance if the student is off topic, increase or decrease the complexity (grade level) of Expert Avatar responses and instruct the Expert Avatar to test the student's understanding of responses previously provided. Continued lack of performance exhibited by the student can result in a simplification of responses and a suggestion from the Expert Avatar to repeat problem area queries; [0061] A preferred embodiment of the system will also include a library of facial expressions, gestures, body language, movements and vocalizations to give emotional depth to the Expert Avatar. The library may be used to display the Expert Avatar in an engaging manner that is appropriate to the conversation and the input by the student).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Solomon in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
TAYA does not disclose the following limitations, however, GIARD discloses:
patterns associated with the emotional effectiveness (GIARD (WO 2013155828 A1) discloses in : [0065] In one embodiment, the subject video is streamed in substantially real-time to the server while being recorded, and automatically analyzed to determine which Idle video is to be presented to the subject. For example, audio and video analysis may be applied to the subject video to determine the emotional state of the subject while answering the interview question. For example, If smiles or laughs are detected in the subject video, then on idle video in which the actor/avatar smiles may be presented to the subject.
In another example, if It is determined that the subject is sad while answering the Interview question, then on Idle video in which the actor/avatar appears to be compassionately listening is presented. in a further example, If hesitations, surprises, grimaces, etc. are detected, then an Idle video in which the actor/avatar has 0 neutral attitude may be presented to the subject);
and display an emotion response corresponding to the plurality of factors, (GIARD (WO2013156828 A1): [0079] in one embodiment, the emotional state of the subject is also determined for each subject video. An expression recognition analysis is performed on the video and/or audio tracks of the subject video in order to determine the emotional state of the subject while recording the subject video. For example, laughs may be identified within the audio tracks, smiles may be detected from the video tracks in order to determine whether the subject is happy or sad. Basic statistics such as agitation, head position, mouth and eye status, etc. can also be retrieved from the video analysis. The determined emotional state may then be tagged to the corresponding subject video. In the same or another embodiment, the emotional state may correspond to an index keyword assigned to the subject video. In a health care embodiment, the system can be used to detect patterns in emotional state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by GIARD in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Taya does not disclose the following limitations, but does disclose that “Points may also be awarded to the user when the external device 30 is connected to the terminal device 20, when information is exchanged via the external device 30, when a specific movement or other behavior is performed, or when information such as concentration or emotions is obtained through behavior analysis”, however, Zavesky et al discloses
determining, by the processor set, a plurality of factors associated with emotional effectiveness by utilizing the AI model trained using the historic metaverse collaborative event, (Zavesky et al (US 20230410159 A1): [0063] In one or more embodiments, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may determine and/or adjust affinity scores associated with metaverse objects based on the user's historical activities or behavior (e.g., historical interactions with metaverse objects, historical interests, etc.); [0064] In some embodiments, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may place different emphases on, or associate different weights with, historical user behavior/interests depending on the recency of such behavior, and determine the relevance of the metaverse object to the user based on the weights. For example, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may associate a higher weight with recent data (e.g., in the past few minutes, in the past few days, etc.) relating to a particular user behavior with respect to a certain type of object, associate a lower weight with prior data (e.g., months ago, years ago, etc.) relating to the same or similar user behavior, and determine the relevance of the metaverse object to the user using the recent data and not the prior data (or using the prior data to a lesser extent than the recent data). As another example, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may associate a higher weight with data, relating to a particular user behavior with respect to a certain type of metaverse object, that spans a longer time period (e.g., over the past 5 years, 10 years, etc.) than with recent data (e.g., just a few seconds ago, just a few minutes ago, etc.) relating to the same or similar user behavior, and determine the relevance of the metaverse object to the user using the data spanning the longer time period and not the recent data (or using the recent data to a lesser extent than the data spanning the longer time period); [0106] As shown by reference number 230, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may train or update model(s) for determining the relevancy of metaverse objects to the user and/or model(s) for generating personalized recommendations or reviews of metaverse objects for the user. In exemplary embodiments, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may train or update the model(s) (e.g., some or all of the aforementioned machine learning model(s), embedding/understanding model(s), aggregate model(s), and/or the like associated with steps 224 and/or 226) based on the user feedback. In various embodiments, the immersion evaluation platform 202 can provide information regarding the user feedback as input to the model(s), which may perform machine learning to automate future determinations of the relevancy of metaverse objects to the user and/or to automate future generations of personalized recommendations or reviews of metaverse objects for the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Zavesky et al in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, TAYA does not disclose the following limitations, however, Zavesky discloses:
further comprising masking negative influencing factors of one or more of the participants, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0198] In one or more embodiments, features that are positively recited can also be negatively recited and excluded from the embodiment with or without replacement by another structural and/or functional feature;
identifying positive influencing factors that cause the metaverse collaborative event to improve the emotional effectiveness, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0087] As yet another example, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may identify repeated visits to the metaverse object as an indication of positive exposure to the metaverse object, and factor this finding in its generation of the personalized recommendation or review of the metaverse object for the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Zavesky in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, TAYA discloses: wherein the determining that the participants in the metaverse collaborative event are not asking sufficient questions comprises determining that one of the participants does not understand a topic presented by the presenter during the metaverse collaborative event, (The information processing system 1 according to this embodiment has a function of asking questions about things that the user does not understand using photos, videos, audio, etc. in the virtual space, selecting those questions, and teaching them);
As per claim 9, this claim recites limitations similar to those recited in independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 11, TAYA does not disclose the following limitations, however, Zavesky discloses:
further comprising masking negative influencing factors of one or more of the participants, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0198] In one or more embodiments, features that are positively recited can also be negatively recited and excluded from the embodiment with or without replacement by another structural and/or functional feature;
identifying positive influencing factors that cause the metaverse collaborative event to improve the emotional effectiveness, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0087] As yet another example, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may identify repeated visits to the metaverse object as an indication of positive exposure to the metaverse object, and factor this finding in its generation of the personalized recommendation or review of the metaverse object for the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Zavesky in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14, TAYA, discloses: wherein the determining that the participants in the metaverse collaborative event are not asking sufficient questions comprises one of: comparing questions asked during the metaverse collaborative event to questions determined from a knowledge corpus; and determining that one of the participants does not understand a topic presented by the presenter during the metaverse collaborative event, (The information processing system 1 according to this embodiment has a function of asking questions about things that the user does not understand using photos, videos, audio, etc. in the virtual space, selecting those questions, and teaching them); .
As per claim 15, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 17, TAYA does not disclose the following limitations, however, Zavesky discloses: further comprising masking negative influencing factors of one or more of the participants, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0198] In one or more embodiments, features that are positively recited can also be negatively recited and excluded from the embodiment with or without replacement by another structural and/or functional feature;
identifying positive influencing factors that cause the metaverse collaborative event to improve the emotional effectiveness, (Zavesky (US 20230410159 A1): [0087] As yet another example, the immersion evaluation platform 202 may identify repeated visits to the metaverse object as an indication of positive exposure to the metaverse object, and factor this finding in its generation of the personalized recommendation or review of the metaverse object for the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Zavesky in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 20, TAYA discloses: wherein the determining that the participants in the metaverse collaborative event are not asking sufficient questions comprises one of: comparing questions asked during the metaverse collaborative event to questions determined from a knowledge corpus; and determining that one of the participants does not understand a topic presented by the presenter during the metaverse collaborative event, (The information processing system 1 according to this embodiment has a function of asking questions about things that the user does not understand using photos, videos, audio, etc. in the virtual space, selecting those questions, and teaching them0.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 10, 12-13, 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYA (JP 2024067914 A) and further in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1), and further in view of GIARD (WO 1156828 A1), and further in view of Zavesky et al (US 20230410159 A1), and further in view of (LE US 20240281052 A1).
As per claim 2, TAYA discloses: further comprising causing the dummy virtual avatar to display one or more positive influencing factors to the participants and the presenter, (TAYA: Electronic information is exchanged between the terminal device 20 and the server device 10 through this external device 30. In addition, by analyzing the electronic information, it is possible to obtain information such as the level of concentration, tension, whether the person is positive (independence), and study time).
TAYA does not disclose: identifying types of body language which are linked to the emotional
effectiveness. However, Le discloses in: ([0016] In some embodiments, avatars can represent movement of a user through simple facial movements (e.g., nods). In some embodiments, avatars can replicate an entire user and/or their body movements to create a vivid feeling of the user being physically present in the metaverse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, TAYA does not disclose: further comprising inviting one or more of the participants to the metaverse collaborative event based on determining that the one or more of the participants are interested in the metaverse collaborative event,
However, Le discloses: (Le: In some implementations, a cloned avatar can advertise a particular profile for jobs or services, which can be selected by another interested avatar. For example, advertised content (e.g., presented via speech or text) can include "here are my skills, do you have work for me" or "lam a subject matter expert in mathematics for beginners, would you be interested in my services?" ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, TAYA does not disclose: further comprising dynamically rearranging the participants to different locations in the three-dimensional space.
However, Le discloses: ([LE, [0126] In
some implementations, a cloned avatar (e.g., a cloned avatar which was previously the primary avatar of the user) can be directed and/or controlled by the cloned avatar management system based on the location and/or activity of the primary avatar. For example, a cloned avatar may be instructed or controlled to follow a primary avatar as the primary avatar moves around the metaverse (e.g., at a particular distance, directly behind, and/or directly to the side of the primary avatar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, TAYA discloses: wherein program instructions are executable to cause the dummy avatar to display one or more positive influencing factors to the participants and the presenter, (TAYA: Electronic information is exchanged between the terminal device 20 and the server device 10 through this external device 30. In addition, by analyzing the electronic information, it is possible to obtain information such as the level of concentration, tension, whether the person is positive (independence), and study time);
TAYA does not disclose: identifying types of body language which are linked to the emotional effectiveness.
However, Le discloses in: ([0016] In some embodiments, avatars can represent movement of a user through simple facial movements (e.g., nods). In some embodiments, avatars can replicate an entire user and/or their body movements to create a vivid feeling of the user being physically present in the metaverse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12, TAYA does not disclose: wherein program instructions are executable to invite one or more of the participants to the metaverse collaborative event based on determining that the one or more of the participants are interested in the metaverse collaborative event.
However, Le discloses: ((Le: In some implementations, a cloned avatar can advertise a particular profile for jobs or services, which can be selected by another interested avatar. For example, advertised content (e.g., presented via speech or text) can include "here are my skills, do you have work for me" or "lam a subject matter expert in mathematics for beginners, would you be interested in my services ?"). .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
As per claim 13, TAYA does not disclose: wherein program instructions are executable to dynamically rearrange the participants to different locations in the three-dimensional space,
However, LE discloses: ({[LE, [0126] In some implementations, a cloned avatar (e.g., a cloned avatar which was previously the primary avatar of the user) can be directed and/or controlled by the cloned avatar management system based on the location and/or activity of the primary avatar. For example, a cloned avatar may be instructed or controlled to follow a primary avatar as the primary avatar moves around the metaverse (e.g., at a particular distance, directly behind, and/or directly to the side of the primary avatar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 16, TAYA, discloses: wherein program instructions are executable to cause the dummy avatar to display one or more positive influencing factors to the participants and the presenter, (TAYA: Electronic information is exchanged between the terminal device 20 and the server device 10 through this external device 30. In addition, by analyzing the electronic information, it is possible to obtain information such as the level of concentration, tension, whether the person is positive (independence), and study time).
TAYA does not disclose: identifying types of body language which are linked to the emotional effectiveness.
However, Le discloses in: [0016] In some embodiments, avatars can represent movement of a user through simple facial movements (e.g., nods). In some embodiments, avatars can replicate an entire user and/or their body movements to create a vivid feeling of the user being physically present in the metaverse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18, TAYA does not disclose the following, however, Le discloses: wherein program instructions are executable to invite one or more of the participants to the metaverse collaborative event based on determining that the one or more of the participants are interested in the metaverse collaborative event, (Le: In some implementations, a cloned avatar can advertise a particular profile for jobs or services, which can be selected by another interested avatar. For example, advertised content (e.g., presented via speech or text) can include "here are my skills, do you have work for me" or "lama subject matter expert in mathematics for beginners, would you be interested in my services?"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 19, TAYA does not disclose the following, however, Le discloses: wherein program instructions are executable to dynamically rearrange the participants to different locations in the three-dimensional space, ([LE, [0126] In some implementations, a cloned avatar (e.g., a cloned avatar which was previously the primary avatar of the user) can be directed and/or controlled by the cloned avatar management system based on the location and/or activity of the primary avatar. For example, a cloned avatar may be instructed or controlled to follow a primary avatar as the primary avatar moves around the metaverse (e.g., at a particular distance, directly behind, and/or directly to the side of the primary avatar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Le in the systems of TAYA, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that rendering and controlling a virtual avatar within a three-dimensional virtual world are computer-implemented operations requiring computer processing and a virtual-world platform and therefore cannot practically be performed mentally. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Referring to the 101 rejection, Examiner does not disclose that the rendering or control of the virtual avatar itself as the mental process, but instead, shows the identified abstract idea as the analysis, comparison, evaluation, and determination of information concerning participant interaction, including analyzing historical events, generating and ranking questions, comparing questions, determining that participants are not asking sufficient questions, and determining factors associated with emotional effectiveness, which constitute evaluation and judgment of information and fall within the mental-process grouping. The rendering and controlling the virtual avatar are therefore considered as additional elements under Step 2A, Prong Two. Although those limitations require computer implementation, the mere fact that an additional element cannot itself be performed mentally does not establish that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. When evaluating under 35 USC 101, Examiner must ask whether the additional elements, individually or in combination, apply the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception, such as by improving computer functionality or another technology. However, the present claims merely use the determined information to cause a metaverse platform to render a dummy avatar and control the avatar to ask a selected question and display an emotional response, and does not recite a specific technological improvement to avatar rendering, virtual-world operation, AI-model operation, or another technological field. Accordingly, the computer implementation does not, by itself, integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that generating the knowledge corpus from historic metaverse collaborative events and ranking questions according to contextual analysis performed by an AI model cannot reasonably be characterized as a mental process. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of an AI model does not, by itself, remove it from the mental-process grouping. When making the 35 USC 101 analysis, Examiner must ask whether the claimed steps recite an evaluation, judgment, observation, or analysis that could practically be performed in the human mind. Here, the generation of a knowledge corpus is based on analyzing historical collaborative events to identify types of questions associated with event types and participant profiles, and the questions are ranked according to contextual analysis, which merely involve organizing, evaluating, and ranking information based on identified characteristics and relationships. Although the claims include a processor and an AI model, these components indeed show that the analysis is performed by a computer, but does not establish that the claimed AI processing improves the functioning of the computer or AI technology, and therefore, the AI implementation is considered as an additional element and does not, by itself, remove the identified abstract idea from the mental-process grouping.
Applicant further argues that the claimed features integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the specification describes improvements to the operation of a metaverse platform through computer-specific operations, including controlling dummy avatars, dynamically rearranging participant avatars, and automatically inviting users determined to be interested in a virtual-world event. Applicant further argues that the claimed implementation is necessarily rooted in computer technology because virtual worlds require computer-based rendering and control. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere use of computer technology or a virtual-world platform does not, by itself, establish an improvement to computer functionality or another technology, and the specification's disclosure of various improvements to a metaverse platform does not establish that each such improvement is recited by the instant claim. In particular, claim 1 does not recite dynamically rearranging avatars or automatically inviting users based on an indication of interest. Rather, claim 1 recites analyzing historical events and participant information, generating and ranking questions, comparing questions asked during an event with the generated knowledge corpus, determining that participants are not asking sufficient questions, and, based on that determination, causing a dummy avatar to ask a selected question and display an emotional response. As previously disclosed, although the claimed operations are performed using computer technology, the claim does not identify a particular improvement to the operation of the metaverse platform, avatar-rendering technology, AI model, or other technology resulting from the claimed analysis. Instead, the computer-based operations are used to apply the identified analysis to facilitate participant interaction during a virtual event. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
In addition, Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to amended claim 1 of Ex parte Desjardins because the claims are directed to improving operation of a virtual collaboration platform through AI-driven control of computer-generated objects within a three-dimensional environment. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ex parte Desjardins, the claimed machine-learning limitations reflected an improvement to how the machine-learning model itself operated, including adjusting model parameters to optimize performance on a second machine-learning task while protecting performance on a first task which reduced storage capacity, system complexity and enabled the AI system to learn new tasks while preserving knowledge of previous tasks. However, the present claim does not recite a particular improvement to the operation of the AI model itself. Rather, the AI model is used to analyze historical metaverse collaborative events, generate and rank questions, compare questions asked during an ongoing event with questions in the generated knowledge corpus, and determine whether participants are asking sufficient questions. The claim then uses the resulting determination to cause a metaverse platform to render and control a dummy virtual avatar to ask a selected question and display an emotional response, and therefore does not recite a specific improvement to the AI model, avatar-rendering technology, virtual-world platform, or other computer technology. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
With regard to Step 2B, there are no additional elements that raise the claims as a whole to be directed towards “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. Therefore independent 1, 9 and 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With regard to dependent claims 2-5, 8, 10-14 and 16-20, these claims are still rejected under 35 USC 101 at least by virtue of their dependencies on independent claims 1, 9 and 15.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks filed 8/17/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYA (JP 2024067914 A) and further in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1), and further in view of GIARD (WO 1156828 A1), 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 wherein claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20 are rejected further in view of Zavesky et al (US 20230410159 A1).
Similarly, claim(s) 2, 4-5, 10, 12-13, 16, 18-19 is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYA (JP 2024067914 A) and further in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1), and further in view of GIARD (WO 1156828 A1), and further in view of Zavesky et al (US 20230410159 A1), and further in view of (LE US 20240281052 A1).
Claims 3, 11 and 17 remain rejected as being unpatentable over TAYA (JP 2024067914 A) and further in view of Solomon (US 20170206797 A1), and further in view of GIARD (WO 1156828 A1), and further in view of Zavesky et al (US 20230410159 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
September 22, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights