DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11-12 are amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIJAYAN (No. US-20200005284-A1 “Vijayan”) in view of TAE WON (No. KR-102451241-B1 “Tae”) in further view of HOWARD (No. US-20210272394-A1 “Howard”) in view of SILVERGLATE (No. US-20210093972-A1 “Silverglate”) and in further view of NAKANISHI (No. JP-2011215437-A “Nakanishi”).
Regarding claim 1, Vijayan teaches “A platform providing system for a vehicle content service, the platform providing system comprising:” (Systems ... content engagement platforms; Para 0009);
“a blockchain platform server configured to support the service platform,” (blockchain-based content engagement platforms; Para 0009);
“wherein the service platform server is configured to:
generate a marketplace by means of a smart contract-based commerce platform in conjunction with the blockchain platform server,” (market makers via smart contract that automates buying and selling of tokens; Para 0086); (a smart contract is written to a blockchain; Para 0008);
Vijayan does not teach “a service platform server configured to construct a service platform in a metaverse-based virtual environment”
Tae teaches “a service platform server configured to construct a service platform in a metaverse-based virtual environment; and” (service providing apparatus performing an NFT-based service providing method applied to a metaverse space; Para 0036);
Vijayan does not teach “generate a smart healing function based on a user experience analysis of a virtual vehicle in the service platform, wherein the virtual vehicle is assigned to a user in the service platform, and”
Howard teaches “generate a smart healing function based on a user experience analysis of a virtual vehicle in the service platform,” (digital twin system based on an identity .... of the user of the vehicle; Para 0015); (including control of variation of user experience to achieve desired outcomes. In one such example, an artificial intelligence system 5136 may vary parameters, such as driving experience, music and the like, to account for changes in hormonal systems of the user ...., such as to induce healthy changes in state; Para 0431);
While Silverglate teaches “wherein the virtual vehicle is assigned to a user in the service platform, and” (The virtual garage can include data representing some or all of the vehicles.... owned and or saved by the end user; Para 0037);
Howard discloses analyzing user state and adapting to vehicle experience. This corresponds with the smart healing function. The system responds to the analyzed user condition by modifying the experience to get a healthy state. Silverglate discloses user association with vehicle and a virtual vehicle associated with the user. Vijayan supplies the network content platform, thus incorporating the user responsive virtual vehicle.
Vijayan, Howard and Silverglate do not teach “generate a sound design platform providing a sound design tool supporting the user to design a virtual sound of the virtual vehicle in the service platform and transact the designed virtual sound in the marketplace, wherein the virtual sound includes at least one of an electronic sound, a warning sound, or a driving sound of the virtual vehicle.”
Nakanishi teaches “generate a sound design platform providing a sound design tool supporting the user to design a virtual sound of the virtual vehicle in the service platform and transact the designed virtual sound in the marketplace,” (the sound control unit 30 includes a process of generating a virtual engine sound (a process of generating a virtual engine sound by synthesizing a basic waveform) and a volume of the virtual engine sound (sound intensity, A process of changing at least one of (sound pressure), tone color (sound quality, waveform), and pitch (pitch, frequency); Para 0042);
“wherein the virtual sound includes at least one of an electronic sound, a warning sound, or a driving sound of the virtual vehicle.” (when emergency information is detected, control may be performed so that the timbre of the virtual engine sound for vehicle exterior becomes a warning sound; Para 0206);
Nakanishi discloses a sound control unit that allows for the generation of a virtual sound and the control of the sound for the virtual vehicle. As well as the virtual vehicle having an engine sound and a waring sound associated with eh vehicle. Vijayan discloses a platform that includes virtual environment and also supports blockchain platform server. They also disclose a marketplace that has smart contracts that allow for a transaction. Vijayan supplies that content can be from an NFT and that the NFT can be transacted through a marketplace, in combination with Nakanishi teaching of vehicle sound content. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine Tae’s NFT based digital content services in metaverse environment with Vijayan, thus allowing users to access and transact digital content in a virtual environment. In addition, combining Howard’s user vehicle experience and Silverglate’s user associated virtual vehicle into Vijayan’s content engagement platform because it would apply known personalization techniques to digital vehicles content associated with a platform user thus allowing the platform experience to adapt to the user’s state and preferences. It would further be obvious to incorporate Nakanishi’s virtual vehicle sound as content in Vijayan’s marketplace. These combinations allow user personalization of a marketplace in a virtual environment.
The motivation for the above is to have an efficient and user-friendly platform for vehicle content transaction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Vijayan by a service platform server configured to construct a service platform in a metaverse-based virtual environment as taught by Tae and by generate a smart healing function based on a user experience analysis of a virtual vehicle in the service platform, wherein the virtual vehicle is assigned to a user in the service platform as taught by Howard and Silverglate and by generate a sound design platform providing a sound design tool supporting the user to design a virtual sound of the virtual vehicle in the service platform and transact the designed virtual sound in the marketplace, wherein the virtual sound includes at least one of an electronic sound, a warning sound, or a driving sound of the virtual vehicle as taught by Nakanishi.
Regarding claim 2, Vijayan teaches “The platform providing system of claim 1, wherein the service platform server is configured to generate a transaction model supporting to perform a content transaction in conjunction with the blockchain platform server.” (the content engagement platform 200 to transact via the public blockchain; Para 0083); (blockchain automatically processes the rules associated with the transaction; Para 0109);
The motivation for the above is to have an efficient and user-friendly transaction model for preforming transaction within the platform.
Regarding claim 3, Vijayan teaches “The platform providing system of claim 2, wherein the transaction model supports a content transaction using a non- fungible token (NFT)-based blockchain technology.” (conduct transactions with respect to NFTs by communicating with an NFT blockchain; Para 0118);
The motivation for the above is to have an efficient and user-friendly transaction model for preforming transaction within the platform.
Regarding claim 11, Vijayan “A platform providing method for a vehicle content service, the platform providing method comprising:” (Methods ... content engagement platforms; Para 0009);
“generating, by the service platform server, a marketplace by means of a smart contract-based commerce platform in conjunction with a blockchain platform server;” (market makers via smart contract that automates buying and selling of tokens; Para 0086); (a smart contract is written to a blockchain; Para 0008);
Vijayan does not teach “constructing, by a service platform server, a service platform in a metaverse-based virtual environment”.
Tae teaches “constructing, by a service platform server, a service platform in a metaverse-based virtual environment;” (service providing apparatus performing an NFT-based service providing method applied to a metaverse space; Para 0036);
Vijayan does not teach “generating, by the service platform server, a smart healing function based on a user experience analysis of a virtual vehicle in the service platform, wherein the virtual vehicle is assigned to a user in the service platform; and”
Howard teaches “generating, by the service platform server, a smart healing function based on a user experience analysis of a virtual vehicle in the service platform,” (digital twin system based on an identity .... of the user of the vehicle; Para 0015); (including control of variation of user experience to achieve desired outcomes. In one such example, an artificial intelligence system 5136 may vary parameters, such as driving experience, music and the like, to account for changes in hormonal systems of the user ...., such as to induce healthy changes in state; Para 0431);
While Silverglate teaches “wherein the virtual vehicle is assigned to a user in the service platform; and” (The virtual garage can include data representing some or all of the vehicles.... owned and or saved by the end user; Para 0037);
Vijayan, Howard and Silverglate do not teach “generating, by the service platform server, a sound design platform providing a sound design tool supporting the user to design a virtual sound of the virtual vehicle in the service platform and transact the designed virtual sound in the marketplace, wherein the virtual sound includes at least one of an electronic sound, a warning sound, or a driving sound of the virtual vehicle.”
Nakanishi teaches “generating, by the service platform server, a sound design platform providing a sound design tool supporting the user to design a virtual sound of the virtual vehicle in the service platform and transact the designed virtual sound in the marketplace,” (the sound control unit 30 includes a process of generating a virtual engine sound (a process of generating a virtual engine sound by synthesizing a basic waveform) and a volume of the virtual engine sound (sound intensity, A process of changing at least one of (sound pressure), tone color (sound quality, waveform), and pitch (pitch, frequency); Para 0042);
“wherein the virtual sound includes at least one of an electronic sound, a warning sound, or a driving sound of the virtual vehicle.” (when emergency information is detected, control may be performed so that the timbre of the virtual engine sound for vehicle exterior becomes a warning sound; Para 0206);
Claim 11 is directed to a platform providing method and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the platform providing system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Vijayan teaches “The platform providing method of claim 11, wherein the constructing of the service platform includes: generating a transaction model supporting to perform a content transaction in conjunction with the blockchain platform server.” (the content engagement platform 200 to transact via the public blockchain; Para 0083); (blockchain automatically processes the rules associated with the transaction; Para 0109);
Claim 12 is directed to a platform providing method and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the platform providing system of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a platform providing method and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the platform providing system of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIJAYAN in view of TAE WON in further view of HOWARD in view of SILVERGLATE and in further view of NAKANISHI and in further view of LEE (No. US-20200324697-A1 “Lee”) and KRUEGER (No. US-20160167672-A1 “Krueger”).
Regarding claim 4, while Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate and Nakanishi fail to teach the limitation of claim 4, Lee teaches “The platform providing system of claim 1, wherein the service platform server is configured to:
analyze a driving pattern of a user based on driving data of the virtual vehicle; and” (a travel analyzing unit configured to analyze a traveling pattern of the driver by applying any one among a vehicle; Para 0010);
“establish an emotion modeling concept depending on the driving pattern.” (the artificial intelligence learning unit 200 may be configured to learn the taste, traveling propensity, or favorite emotional characteristic, etc. of the driver based on any one or more learning information of the driver identifying unit 100, the music analyzing unit 100-1, and the travel analyzing unit 300; Para 0041);
Lee discloses a travel analyzing unit that can analyses the pattern driven by the user of the virtual vehicle and has an AI learning unit that can learn the emotion and driving pattern together.
The motivation for the above is accurate information of driver pattern for user friendly platform.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate and Nakanishi by analyze a driving pattern of a user based on driving data of the virtual vehicle; and establish an emotion modeling concept depending on the driving pattern as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 5, while Vijayan, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi and Lee fail to teach the limitation of claim 5, Krueger teaches “The platform providing system of claim 4, wherein the service platform server is configured to:
generate determination logic for determining cyber sickness based on a biometric signal of the user using a biometric signal measurement device; and” (an algorithm (shown at step 640) that calculates an unhealthiness value and this unhealthiness value can then be used to transmit a control signal to a vehicle or device as shown at step 650. ...use this comparison to help mitigate unhealthiness symptoms from a provocative environment; Para 0168);
“generate cyber sickness mitigation control logic in response to that an occurrence of the cyber sickness.” (VR sickness (also known as cyber sickness); Para 0007); (an algorithm (shown at step 640) that calculates an unhealthiness value and this unhealthiness value can then be used to transmit a control signal to a vehicle or device .... use this comparison to help mitigate unhealthiness symptoms from a provocative environment; Para 0168);
Krueger teaches an unhealthiness value of a vehicle and the how to mitigate the symptoms of the vehicle.
The motivation for the above is efficient determination of the health of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi and Lee by generate determination logic for determining cyber sickness based on a biometric signal of the user using a biometric signal measurement device; and generate cyber sickness mitigation control logic in response to that an occurrence of the cyber sickness as taught by Krueger.
Regarding claim 6, while Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi and Lee fail to teach the limitation of claim 6, Krueger teaches “The platform providing system of claim 5, wherein the biometric signal measurement device includes:
an electroencephalogram (EEG) measurement device configured to measure EEG in a dry manner; and” (measured using an electroencephalograph (EEG), which could record the electrical potential along the scalp produced by the neurons within the brain. EEG measurement can be done using any EEG technology; Para 0075 Part C);
“a haptic controller configured to measure a heart rate.” (These input devices can be operated using haptic methods, sound, or movements of the body. j. Sensors in contact with the user's skin and affixed to the user worn VR, AR, MD, or synthetic environment can provide a display to the user and/or to a remote site, such as to a physician. This can evaluate the user's physiologic response to certain stimulus situations or when participating in physical activities while using the immersive system; Para 0162-0163);
Krueger discloses stimulus situations or physical activities and how sensors in contact with user, this relates to measure hear rate.
The motivation for the above is have an accurate measure of the EEG for the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi and Lee by an electroencephalogram (EEG) measurement device configured to measure EEG in a dry manner; and a haptic controller configured to measure a heart rate as taught by Krueger.
Regarding claim 7, while Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi and Lee fail to teach the limitation of claim 7, Krueger teaches “The platform providing system of claim 6, wherein the EEG measurement device includes:
a microphone configured to measure a breathing sound.” (These input devices can be operated using haptic methods, sound, or movements of the body .... Sensors in contact with the user's skin and affixed to the user worn VR, AR, MD....The system can include or be coupled to other peripherals, such as a touchpad, an integrated microphone; Para 0162-0164);
Krueger discloses a sound of the body measured by the decide, device can include a microphone. The sounds from the body can include breathing.
The motivation for the above is an accurate and user-friendly microphone to measure sound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi and Lee by a microphone configured to measure a breathing sound as taught by Krueger.
Claim 14 is directed to a platform providing method and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the platform providing system of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 4.
Claim 15 is directed to a platform providing method and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the platform providing system of claim 15. Therefore, claim 5 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIJAYAN in view of TAE WON in further view of HOWARD in view of SILVERGLATE and in further view of NAKANISHI and in further view of KRUEGER (No. US-20160167672-A1 “Krueger”) and 김영주 Kim Young-joo (No. KR-101808761-B1 “Young-joo”).
Regarding claim 8, while Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate and Nakanishi fail to teach the limitation of claim 8, Krueger teaches “The platform providing system of claim 1, wherein the service platform server is configured to:
determine a user state by analyzing a biometric signal of a user;” (Biometric sensors can measure normal or abnormal vital signs or chemical values. These values can be stored/used to evaluate a person's health; Para 0092);
“derive an emotional concept based on the user state; and” (the person's emotional state; Para 0102); (The nervous system uses electrical impulses which are affected by the person's thoughts, emotions and physical condition; Para 0086);
Krueger doesn’t teach “generate sound masking emotion content using white noise or pink noise based on the emotional concept.”
Young-joo teaches “generate sound masking emotion content using white noise or pink noise based on the emotional concept.” (sound noise corresponding to the target emotion and present it to the subject as an acoustic stimulus. The sound noise used here may include white noise, pink noise, brown noise, gray noise, blue noise, and the like; Pg. 2, Para 15-16);
The motivation for the above is have accurate and efficient sound masking based on emotion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi and Krueger by generate sound masking emotion content using white noise or pink noise based on the emotional concept as taught by Young-joo.
Claim 16 is directed to a platform providing method and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the platform providing system of claim 16. Therefore, claim 8 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIJAYAN in view of HOWARD in view of SILVERGLATE and in further view of NAKANISHI and in further view of KRUEGER and 김영주 Kim Young-joo and in further view of Roggenkamp (No. US-9230531-B2 “Roggenkamp”).
Regarding claim 9, while Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi, Krueger and Young-joo fail to teach the limitation of claim 9, Roggenkamp teaches “The platform providing system of claim 8, wherein the service platform server is configured to:
measure a sound level using a sensor installed on a front upper end in the interior of a vehicle;” (The audio system 106 produces the noise indicated in the masking frequency shape and presents it through the speakers 116 to the interior cabin of the vehicle; Col 4, Line 63-65); (Components of the audio system 106 may be disposed, at least in part, in or near the cabin of the vehicle or in any location that facilitates execution of the road noise masking processes; Col 4, Line 4-7);
“play a masking sound based on the measured sound level; and” (generates a masking sound through the vehicle's audio system to mask the noise; Col 5, Line 7-8); (calculating a masking noise shape commensurate with the expected interior sound; Col 2, Line 6-7);
“output the played masking sound through a front mid-range speaker of a vehicle.” (transmitting instructions including the masking noise shape to an audio system in the vehicle, the audio system produces masking noise; Col 2, Line 7-9); (generates a masking sound through the vehicle's audio system to mask the noise; Col 5, Line 7-8);
The motivation for the above is efficient sound masking for user-friendly usage in a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi, Krueger and Young-joo by measure a sound level using a sensor installed on a front upper end in the interior of a vehicle; play a masking sound based on the measured sound level; and output the played masking sound through a front mid-range speaker of a vehicle as taught by Roggenkamp.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIJAYAN in view of TAE WON in further view of HOWARD in view of SILVERGLATE and in further view of NAKANISHI and in further view of KRUEGER and 김영주 Kim Young-joo and in further view of GOLDSTEIN (US-9293128-B2 “Goldstein”).
Regarding claim 10, while Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi, Krueger and Young-joo fail to teach the limitation of claim 10, Goldstein teaches “The platform providing system of claim 8, wherein the service platform server is configured to:
measure a sound level using a sensor located at an ear position of the user;” (An error sensor (typically an acoustic error microphone) is provided in the earphone housing; Col 1, Line 44-45); (the control filter processes ambient noise content that has been measured or is contained in the output of a sensing microphone; Col 1, Line 55-57);
“play a masking sound based on the measured sound level; and” (the anti-noise is produced, so as to reduce the ambient noise that is being heard by the wearer of the earphone; Col 1, Line 47-49);
“output the played masking sound through a speaker located at on the ear position of the user.” (the earphone speaker driver and the error microphone, when the earphone has been placed in or against the ear; Col 1, Line 60-62); (produce an anti-noise based on both an output of the reference microphone and an output of the error micro phone; Col 2, Line 11-13);
The motivation for the above is efficient sound masking for user-friendly usage in a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate, Nakanishi, Krueger and Young-joo by measure a sound level using a sensor located at an ear position of the use, play a masking sound based on the measured sound level; and output the played masking sound through a speaker located at on the ear position of the user as taught by Goldstein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg.7-11, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 USC § 103 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 Vijayan, Tae,.
Applicant argues that Vijayan merely discloses a blockchain-based content engagement platform in which verified content creators mint NFTs for real-world media content, such as movies and songs, and in which transactions of the tokens are automated via smart contracts. In other words, Vijayan merely discloses an NFT transaction platform for existing media content and is silent on a service platform constructed in a metaverse-based virtual environment for a vehicle content service. Thus, Vijayan fails to teach or suggest "a service platform server configured to construct a service platform in a metaverse- based virtual environment," as recited by claim 1. Kim and Cella, either taken alone or in combination, fail to make up for the above deficiencies in Vijayan and have not been cited as doing so.
Examiner replies that Vijayan is relied upon for its content engagement platform. Blockchain and smart contract implementation and marketplace transactions. Vijayan teaches a content engagement platform employing an NFT blockchain where NFTs are implemented as smart contracts and are stored, traded and sold by users. SEE Para 0008-0009. Tae supplies the marketplace environment that along with the NFT based digital content services in metaverse environment of Vijayan, allows users to access and transact digital content in a virtual environment. SEE Para 0036.
Applicant argues that Vijayan fails to teach or suggest "generate a smart healing function based on a user experience analysis of a virtual vehicle in the service platform, wherein the virtual vehicle is assigned to a user in the service platform," as recited by claim 1. Kim fails to make up for the above deficiencies in Vijayan. Kim merely discloses a technique in which a telematics server creates a virtual vehicle ID and provides a telematics API so that a third-party service developer can develop and verify a third-party service linked with a telematics service before a release of an actual vehicle. Thus, Kim fails to teach or suggest "generate a smart healing function based on a user experience analysis of a virtual vehicle in the service platform, wherein the virtual vehicle is assigned to a user in the service platform," as recited by claim 1. Cella fails to make up for the above deficiencies in Vijayan and Kim and has not been cited as doing so.
Examiner replies that Howard supplies an artificial intelligence-based vehicle system that obtains information concerning a vehicle user and controls user experience to achieve a desired outcome. That AI system includes driving experiences, music and the like in response to changes user’s state in order to induce healthy changes in user state. Therefore, teaching analyzing a user’s condition and modifying the vehicle experience in response, thus producing a healthy user state which corresponds to the smart healing functionality. SEE Para 0431. Silvergate teaches sending user information to access virtual garage containing a virtual vehicle and that virtual vehicle being owned or saved by the user thus teaching a user specific association between a user account and the virtual vehicle. SEE Para 0037.
Applicant argues that Vijayan and Kim, either taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest "generate a sound design platform providing a sound design tool supporting the user to design a virtual sound of the virtual vehicle in the service platform and transact the designed virtual sound in the marketplace, wherein the virtual sound includes at least one of an electronic sound, a warning sound, or a driving sound of the virtual vehicle," as recited by claim 1. Cella fails to make up for the above deficiencies in Vijayan and Kim. Cella merely discloses a cloud-based enterprise management platform for managing value chain networks, such as supply chains. Thus, Cella fails to teach or suggest "generate a sound design platform providing a sound design tool supporting the user to design a virtual sound of the virtual vehicle in the service platform and transact the designed virtual sound in the marketplace, wherein the virtual sound includes at least one of an electronic sound, a warning sound, or a driving sound of the virtual vehicle," as recited by claim 1.
Examiner replies that Nakanishi teaches a sound control system to generate a virtual engine sound and modify characteristics of the generated sound. Nakanishi further teaches that the used sound may be determined according to the driver’s preference thus teaching a virtual vehicle sound having user selectable sound characteristics. Tying it back to Vijayan NFT based content through a smart contract and transacting the NFT through block-based content engagement platform, it would apply known personalization techniques to digital vehicles content associated with a platform user thus allowing the platform experience to adapt to the user’s state and preferences. SEE Para 0042. It would further be obvious to incorporate Nakanishi’s virtual vehicle sound as content in Vijayan’s marketplace. These combinations allow user personalization of a marketplace in a virtual environment.
Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art have no motivation to combine Vijayan, Kim, and Cella because Vijayan (directed to an NFT transaction platform for media content), Kim (directed to a virtual vehicle simulation for testing a telematics API), and Cella (directed to an enterprise management platform for value chain networks) belong to technical fields different from one another and address different problems.
Examiner replies that under new rejection Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate and Nakanishi, a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine to allow user personalization of a marketplace in a virtual environment.
Applicant argues that independent claim 11 has been amended to recite substantially similar limitations as independent claim 1. For at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1, the combination of Vijayan, Kim, and Cella fails to render independent claim 11 obvious. Because claims 12 and 13 depend from independent claim 11, these claims are also not rendered obvious by the combination of Vijayan, Kim, and Cella for at least the same reasons for at least the same reason.
The Examiner replies that claim 11 is similar in scope and functions as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1. By at least virtue of dependency claims 12 and 13 which depend on claim 11 are also rejected.
Applicant argues that Claims 4-7 depend on independent claim 1 and claims 14-15 depend on independent claim 11. The deficiencies in the teachings of Vijayan, Kim, and Cella with respect to claims 1 and 11 are noted above. Lee and Krueger, either taken alone or in combination, fail to cure these deficiencies and have not been cited as doing so. For at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 11, the combination of Vijayan, Kim, Cella, Lee, and Krueger fails to render obvious claims 1 and 11 and thus corresponding dependent claims 4-7, 14, and 15.
The Examiner replies that claims 1 and 11 are rejected under Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate and Nakanishi. Since claims 1 and 11 rejection is maintained, claims 4-7, 14, and 15 are rejected under virtue of dependency to claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 4-7, 14, and 15.
Applicant argues that Claim 8 depends on independent claim 1 and claim 16 depends on independent claim 11. The deficiencies in the teachings of Vijayan, Kim, Cella, and Krueger with respect to claims 1 and 11 are noted above. Young-joo fails to cure these deficiencies and has not been cited as doing so. For at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 11, the combination of Vijayan, Kim, Cella, Krueger, and Young-joo fails to render obvious claims 1 and 11 and thus corresponding dependent claims 8 and 16.
The Examiner replies that claims 1 and 11 are rejected under Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate and Nakanishi. Since claims 1 and 11 rejection is maintained, claims 8 and 16 are rejected under virtue of dependency on claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 8 and 16.
Applicant argues that Claim 9 depends on independent claim 1. The deficiencies in the teachings of over Vijayan, Kim, Cella, Krueger, and Young-joo with respect to claim 1 are noted above. Roggenkamp fails to cure these deficiencies and has not been cited as doing so. For at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, the combination of Vijayan, Kim, Cella, Krueger, Young-joo, and Roggenkamp fails to render obvious claim 1 and thus dependent claim 9.
The Examiner replies that claim 9 is rejected under Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate and Nakanishi. Since claim 1 rejection is maintained, claim 9 is rejected under virtue of dependency to claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejections of claim 9.
Applicant argues that Claim 10 depends on independent claim 1. The deficiencies in the teachings of over Vijayan, Kim, Cella, Krueger, and Young-joo with respect to claim 1 are noted above. Goldstein fails to cure these deficiencies and has not been cited as doing so. For at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, the combination of Vijayan, Kim, Cella, Krueger, Young-joo, and Goldstein fails to render obvious claim 1 and thus dependent claim 10.
The Examiner replies that claim 10 is rejected under Vijayan, Tae, Howard, Silverglate and Nakanishi. Since claim 1 rejection is maintained, claim 10 is rejected under virtue of dependency to claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejections of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR-102388233-B1 (Kim) – Discloses a sound source platform using a blockchain-based NFT. The service providing method of the present invention includes the following steps of: receiving sound source information about a sound source to be registered for a platform to issue a blockchain-based NFT meaning ownership to the sound source; receiving a request for the use of a service related with the sound source registered for the platform from at least one service using terminal connected with a blockchain-based network; and providing the service related with the sound source to the at least one service using terminal based on the pre-issued blockchain-based NFT for the sound source in response to the received request.
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 BRIGITER D PROTAZI whose telephone number is (571)272-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Said A Broome can be reached at 5712722931. 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.
/B.D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights