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 .
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 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.
Claims 1,7,9,11,18,23-25,28-29 and 32-41 are pending.
The previous office action is rescinded. New office action is issued below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,7,9,11,18,23-25,28-29 and 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims fall within a statutory category. Claims 1, 7, 9, 18, 23-25, 28-29, 34-35, 39 are considered “machines” based claims and claims 11, 32-33, 36 and 41 are considered “processes”. Both machines and processes are members of the statutory categories. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong one of the subject matter eligibility test.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception
In Step 2A, Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claims. The claim recites the steps of:
“present a first graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the first GUI presented concurrently with a virtual reality (VR) environment as also presented on the display…” (mental processes -concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion))
“access a first digital certificate …” (mental processes -concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion))
“authenticate the first avatar…” (mental processes -concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion))
“present a second GUI on the display… “ (mental processes -concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion))
The steps performing amount to an abstract idea which falls under a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1, of Subject Matter Eligibility). Abstract ideas falls in the category. The abstract idea falls in the categories of a mental process, for evaluation, judgments, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) & MPEP 2106.06). For example, the courts found that the claim “related to system to monitor access to protected health information in which a rule is created, an audit log is compared with the rule, and a notification is provided if rule is fulfilled”, was directed to an abstract idea of detecting misuse in a computer environment based on analysis log files, while also finding that the claims simply automated a process that was commonly performed without computers in the past. Furthermore, the court found that the claims simply related to the collection and analysis of data is an abstract idea in which there is not inventive concept, and there are no details in the claim that describe an improvement to existing computer technology, Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys, Inc., No. 15-1985 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
In Step 2A, Prong Two, examiner determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application to disqualify abstract as a judicial exception. However, the judicial exception in claim 1 is not integrated into practical because of the generically recited elements:
… one or more processors …
… storage …
do not add meaningful limitation to an abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer function that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2B: Inventive concept
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The use of well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) implementations of computer, executing the action, fails to add significantly more to the abstract idea. In Berkheimer, 224 F.Supp.3d at 647-48 (quoting Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348), claims that “describe "steps that employ only `well-understood, routine, and conventional' computer functions" and are claimed "at a relatively high level of generality.” were held ineligible.
Thus, the analysis concludes is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 7, 9, 23-25, 28-29 and 32-41 merely add details to the generic off-shelf components that were already disclosed in claims 1, 11 and 18, but do not alter the outcome of the analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Key limitations, “responsive to selection of the first selector …” is presented purely as functional labels with no objective boundaries. It’s unclear what is selected from the first selector and therefore leaving readers unable to determine where infringement begins or ends. Because a person having ordinary skill in the art could not ascertain the claim scope with reasonable certainty, the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112(b).
Claim 1 is further rejected because limitation recites “… a second selector that is selectable to …” with optional term “selectable” that doesn’t require the actions after the term to be executed“.
Independent claims 11 and 18 are also rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Dependent claims 7, 9, 23-25, 28-29 and 32-41 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
Further, dependent claims 23, 25, 29, 39, 33 and 40 are additionally rejected because each limitation recites “… selector that is selectable to …” with optional term “selectable” that doesn’t require the actions after the term to be executed.
Dependent claims 34-36, 41 and 37-38 are additionally rejected because each limitation recites “a setting is selectable …” with optional term “selectable” that doesn’t require the actions after the term to be executed.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 7, 34-35, 11, 36, 41 and 18, 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram (US 2024/0022553) in view of SAITO et al. (US 2023/0136394, hereinafter SAITO).
Regarding claim 1: Ingram teaches: A first device, comprising:
at least one processor system comprising one or more processors (Ingram - Fig. 2, a processor 202); and
storage (Ingram - Fig. 2, a memory 204) accessible to the at least one processor system and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor system to:
present a first graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the first GUI presented concurrently with a virtual reality (VR) environment as also presented on the display (Ingram - [0021]: Each of the user devices may be configured to perform specific functions described herein and interact with one or both of real-world server 130 and the virtual-world server 150, e.g., via its user interfaces. See also [0047]), the first GUI comprising a first selector that is selectable to authenticate a first avatar as represented in the VR environment, the first avatar associated with a first person (Ingram - [0018]: the virtual-world server 150 may authenticate that the first avatar 114 is associated with the first user 110. [0056]: when the virtual entity 120 is a virtual device, the virtual device may include a virtual button that the first user 110 may press through the first avatar 114 to request authentication of the virtual entity 120);
present a second GUI on the display, the second GUI comprising a second selector that is selectable to initiate generation of a second avatar associated with a second person (Ingram - [0047]: the virtual entity 120 may be a virtual device having a virtual user interface that can accept user input and display information to the first user 110. The virtual user interface of the virtual user device may include virtual buttons, a virtual touch pad, a virtual touch screen or any other input means for the first user 110 to provide inputs to the virtual device. [0061]: Virtual-world server 150 may be configured to allow first user 110 to configure a virtual avatar associated with the virtual entity 120 to generate a customized virtual avatar);
However, Ingram doesn’t explicitly teach, but SAITO discloses: access a first digital certificate associated with the first avatar (SAITO - [0135] The authenticity confirmation unit 223 acquires an authenticity certificate associated with the avatar ID of the avatar information of the authentic avatar searched in step S506 from an authenticity certificate issuer on the network and refers to content of the acquired authenticity certificate. [0096]: the authentication information assignment unit 222 of the avatar management device 200 performs a process of assigning a digital watermark (an example of authentication information) and a digital authenticity certificate (an example of authentication information) as a process of assigning the authentication information to a target that is an avatar registered);
responsive to selection of the first selector and based on the data from the first digital certificate, authenticate the first avatar as being associated with the first person (SAITO - [0136]: the authenticity confirmation unit 223 performs a comparison process of whether or not information (comparison target information) of the network service where the confirmation target avatar is used and the storage location of the authentic avatar or the like, match the description of the authenticity certificate);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ingram with SAITO so that a digital certification is used to verify the authentic of a user. The modification would have allowed the system to be more secure in virtual environment.
Regarding claim 7: Ingram as modified teaches based on the authentication, presenting an indication in the VR environment that the first avatar has been authenticated as associated with the first person (Ingram - [0055]: the virtual-world server 150 presenting a portion of the user information to the first user 110 is indicative of the fact that the virtual entity 120 is associated with a genuine real-world entity/organization).
Regarding claim 34: Ingram as modified discloses presenting a third GUI on the display, the third GUI being different from the first and second GUIs, the third GUI comprising a setting that is selectable a single time to configure a device to, in multiple future instances, authenticate avatars in VR environments responsive to user input to authenticate the avatars (Ingram - [0077]: When the first user 110 provides the second user credential 154 to gain access to the virtual entity 120, virtual-world server 150 may determine an identity of the first user 110 based on the user information associated with the second user credential 154. Upon request from the first user 110 to authorize the virtual entity 120, the virtual-world server 150 may retrieve a portion of the user information as stored in real-world server 130 and/or virtual-world server 150 and may present the retrieved information to the first user 110 in the virtual environment 102).
Regarding claim 35, Ingram as modified discloses wherein the setting is a first setting, and wherein the third GUI comprises a second setting different from the first setting, the second setting being selectable to set the at least one processor system to only permit interactions in VR environments with authenticated avatars (Ingram - [0049]: When the first user 110 engages through the first avatar 114 in a virtual interaction session 158 with the virtual entity 120 (e.g., through virtual device and/or a virtual avatar of the virtual entity 120) in the virtual environment 102, before a virtual data interaction is performed, it is important to authenticate that the first avatar 114 is associated with the first user 110 and not some un-authorized third party).
Claims 11, 36 and 41 are a method that is substantially equivalent to device claims 1 and 34-35. Therefore claims 11, 36 and 41 are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claims 18 and 37-38 are computer readable medium claims that are substantially equivalent to device claims 1 and 34-35. Therefore claims 18 and 37-38 are rejected by a similar rationale.
Claims 9, 28-29, 39, 32-33, 40 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram (US 2024/0022553) in view of SAITO et al. (US 2023/0136394, hereinafter SAITO) and Low et al. (US 2024/0127389, hereinafter Low).
Regarding claim 9: Ingram as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but Low discloses the digital certificate indicates an identifier for the first avatar and indicates a digital signature associated with an authority that created the first digital certificate, the authority being different from the first person (Low - [0049]: the public key may include the user's public key or a public key the user has registered with a third-party (e.g., certificate authority). [0007]: digital certificates can be used to verify a user's identity. A user can provide proof of authenticity to a certificate authority which, in turn, can sign the user's public key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Low’s avatar identity protection system with Ingram as modified. One of ordinary skills would have been motivated to combine the references in order to provide users interacting with the avatar with a means for proving the avatar engaging in a particular activity is associated with an authorized participant.
Regarding claim 39, 23 and 40: Ingram as modified discloses responsive to selection of the second selector, present a third GUI on the display (Ingram - [0047]: the virtual entity 120 may be a virtual device having a virtual user interface that can accept user input and display information to the first user 110. The virtual user interface of the virtual user device may include virtual buttons, a virtual touch pad, a virtual touch screen or any other input means for the first user 110 to provide inputs to the virtual device),
However, Ingram as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but Low discloses the third GUI comprising a third selector that is selectable to upload data to a certificate authority to create a secure avatar as the second avatar (Low - [0008]: generating verification data and encoding the verification data within a base avatar using a steganography algorithm. [0033]: the verification data can comprise PKI-based data. In some implementations, the verification data can be a public key portion of an asymmetric key pair (e.g., RSA or ECDSA key pair). See also [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Low’s avatar identity protection system with modified Ingram’s system. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the references in order to provide optional action for upload data to certificate authority for create a digital certificate used for security verification
Regarding claims 28, 24 and 32: Ingram as modified discloses Low teaches based on creation of the secure avatar as the second avatar, present a forth GUI on the display, the forth GUI comprising an indication that a digital certificate for the secure avatar was created (Low - [0012]: application 140 (and application 132) can include the capability of rendering and displaying an avatar as part of its operations).
The reason to combine is in the same ration as claims 39-40 and 23 .
Regarding claims 29, 33 and 25: Ingram as modified discloses wherein the fourth GUI comprises a fourth selector that is selectable to download the digital certificate (Low - [0049]: step 212 can also include a sender transmitting a public key and/or digital signature to the recipient along with the secure avatar).
The reason to combine is in the same ration as claims 39-40 and 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Silverstein et al. US 20230254300 A1 - The method includes receiving, from a client device, a request for authenticating an identity of a user of an immersive reality application running in the client device, wherein the user is associated with a subject-based avatar in the immersive reality application. The computer-implemented method also includes verifying, in a server, a public key provided by the client device against a private key stored in the server, the private key associated with the subject-based avatar, providing, to the client device, a certificate of validity of the identity of the user when the public key matches the private key,
Gillis et al. US 12076649 B2 - The program may authenticate the user. The program may create a time-limited avatar overlay for the user to utilize within the metaverse. The time-limited avatar overlay may be transmitted to the user. The user may use the avatar overlay within the metaverse to authenticate the user
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights