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
This action is in reply to the communications filed on June 25, 2026. The Applicant’s Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues at pages 12-13 of Applicant’s Reply dated June 25, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicant’s Reply”) that “Rathod seems inapposite to the present, three-dimensional environments of Edwards and Olson.” Applicant further argues at page 13 of Applicant’s Reply that Rathod “lists tons of activities one could do in the real world—seemingly unrelated to the fully virtual environments of Edwards and Olson—and discusses how a virtual tour of that environment or activity could be created.”
Further, Applicant agues at page 13 of Applicant’s Reply that Rathod is discussing real-world activities “being tracked on a user’s mobile device. And, then ‘generating [a] simulation of [that] activity inside a virtual world.” Applicant further argues at page 14 of Applicant’s Reply that the “Examiner’s Response to Arguments section on pages 3-4 of the OA indicate that the Examiner did not understand the point of the foregoing arguments. In short, Rathod discusses a multiplicity of real-world activities in the cited paragraph [0127] is at best tangentially relevant to any game or other activity in the three-dimensional virtual environment claimed in the present claims. That Rathod can use a mobile device (also in the real world) to ‘track’ in a real-world activity and perhaps post to social media has virtually nothing to do with recreating those activities in a virtual world. The only relevance the undersigned can see in Rathod to these claims is that Rathod mentions the real-world activities also re-created in the three-dimensional virtual world of the present claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Rathod First, the Examiner respectfully notes that, regarding claim 6 for example, the claim merely lists various interactive activities that one could do in the real world but that are performed in the virtual world: a game table, a pinball machine, a pool table, a swimming pool, a hot tub, a bouncy house, a DJ deck, and a boombox. Similarly, claim 7 lists various interactive activities that one could do in the real world but that are performed in the virtual world: playing a card game, playing a board game, playing a pinball machine, playing pool on a pool table, swimming in a pool, soaking in a hot tub, jumping in a bouncy house, creating music with a DJ deck, and playing music with a boombox. In other words, claims 6-7 recite a list of activities that one could do in the real world with no further details provided. Rathod also provides a list of such real world activities that may be done in the virtual world in paragraph [0127] which include “user's car passing over bridge, user visiting cave, avatar of user's dog is walking, running or plying, user is swimming at particular swimming pool, user is doing farming activities, user is wondering in forest, garden, national park and island, boating in lake or river, viewing lighthouse, tracking mountain, visiting and viewing tourist place, doing shopping at street, bath beneath waterfall at particular place, visit particular building or home of relatives, friends or other users, driving car or particular type of vehicle, selling products and services at particular place of business, doing particular type of job at particular office, company, organization, attending fair, visiting flower shop and buying flowers, visiting super market, view products, purchase products, visiting fruits and vegetables stores and view, purchase and eat fruits and vegetables, visiting gift shop and purchase gift, visiting beauty parlor and get one or more types of treatment, playing water sports at beach or resorts, waiting at railway station, and bus stop, smoking at smoking area, park car at parking area, preparing particular food at home, meeting with particular person at particular café house, talk with receptionist, discuss or present particular product to customer, get particular amount of money from particular ATM, spend money for particular products and services, wear particular cloths, get information from tourist information center, get particular medicine at particular medical store by showing particular prescription of particular doctor of particular hospital at particular date and time, view result or mark sheets, and like.” Thus, Rathod discloses a list of real world activities that may also be done in the virtual world and discloses the subject matter of claims 6-7.
Further, in response to Applicant's argument that Rathod is “inapposite” to Olson and Edwards, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With this in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that Olson discloses a “method for producing and presenting a virtual immersive multimedia presentation in a virtual world environment” and includes avatars and a virtual object (i.e., the prefab environment). (See Olson, Abstract, paras. [0065], [0124], [0126]). Edwards discloses an online virtual environment and avatars corresponding to users interacting with the online virtual environment. (See Edwards, Abstract). Edwards further discloses an interactive virtual object in the form of an item that one avatar purchases from another. (See Edwards, para. [0170]). Rathod discloses “virtual world simulations of the real-world or emulate real-life or real-life activities in virtual world or real life simulator or generating a virtual world based on real environment.” (See Rathod, Abstract). Rathod further discloses “generate and access, by the server, a first avatar or representation, that is associated with a first user or entity in the virtual world”. (See Rathod, Abstract). Rathod further discloses “determining one or more types of virtual objects or virtual elements and displaying said identified or determined one or more types of virtual objects or virtual elements to user for enabling user to select, collect, win, battle or play and win, claim, compete, capture said displayed one or more virtual objects or virtual element.” (See Rathod, para. [0011]).
Thus, like Olson and Edwards, Rathod discloses a virtual world inhabited by avatars of real users and virtual objects interacted with by the avatars of real users. Thus, Rathod is not “inapposite” to Olson and Edwards.
Applicant’s remaining arguments about the length of Rathod, how many pages are present before the claims, and whether Rathod is enabling are irrelevant and thus have not been addressed.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but they have either been addressed above or they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0106671 A1 to Olson et al. (hereinafter “Olson”), in view of US 2010/0005424 A1 to Sundaresan et al. (hereinafter “Sundaresan”), and further in view of US 2010/0030660 A1 to Edwards (hereinafter “Edwards”).
Claims 1, 8, and 14: Olson discloses a “method for producing and presenting a virtual immersive multimedia presentation in a virtual world environment.” (See Olson, at least Abstract). Olson further discloses a computing device (See Olson, at least para. [0057], virtual world rendered by computers; para. [0060], server at the virtual world website) for:
generating a three-dimensional virtual environment including a first avatar representing a first user within the three-dimensional virtual environment, the three-dimensional virtual environment including a plurality of avatars in addition to the first avatar engaging in various activities within the three-dimensional virtual environment (See Olson, at least para. [0057], virtual world rendered by computers; virtual world is a navigable visual computer-simulated digital immersive virtual environment intended for its users to virtually inhabit and interact with other uses via avatars; virtual environment is represented in the form of a three-dimensional space; para. [0063], immersive virtual environment is an on-line or otherwise digitally delivered computer generated three-dimensional representation of a setting in which the user perceives their avatar to be within and interacting with; para. [0093], host user chooses the virtual world; para. [0065], avatars are automatically configured as they enter the immersive environment; para. [0135], Mom teleports to the real estate rented by her from the virtual world presentation vendor; para. [0142], avatars choose many approaches to viewing the presentation; some travel along a guided tour that automatically moves them along a path, others prefer to swim randomly, others remain in one location and prefer to turn and zoom in on display);
generating a portable interactive object of the first user at a first location within the three-dimensional virtual environment, the first location within the three-dimensional virtual environment selected exclusively by the first user (See Olson, at least para. [0102], portion of virtual world is bought, leased, or rented; para. [0106], host enters the virtual world and navigates to the acquired real estate; para. [0108], host erects the prefab on the acquired real estate; para. [0124], mom rents space within Second Life for an event; para. [0126], vendor provides mom with a prefabricated three-dimensional immersive environment; Mom stores this in her Second Life inventory, i.e., Mom selects this environment “exclusively” by storing it in her inventory; para. [0135], mom teleports to real estate rented by her in the virtual world; para. [0137], mom locates the portable icon in her Second Life inventory that embodies the prefabricated, three-dimensional virtual environment and activates it; activating the icon causes if to inflate to its full three-dimensional form complete with multi-sensory content reflecting the chosen theme; para. [0089] virtual world inventory is a catalogue associated with the virtual world that contains references to the merchandise, clothing, tools, photos, and other items that an avatar has acquired, downloaded, or has access to during their time in and associated with the virtual world);
the interactive object enabling one or more avatars representing respective users to engage in a multiplayer, interactive experience… (See Olson, at least para. [0107], host chooses which avatars will be invited to the presentation; para. [0111], avatars that have been given access may enter real estate where the digital multimedia presentation will be shown; para. [0115], owners of the avatars choose how and where they view the digital multimedia presentation from within the prefab; para. [0136], mom determines which friends and family will be given access to the multimedia presentation by selecting their Second Life avatar names and adding them to the access control list for the virtual real estate she has rented; para. [0139], avatars of family and friends log into Second Life and teleport to the real estate where the multimedia presentation will be shown; avatars enter the prefabricated environment by walking down the incline from the beach to the underwater setting that was generated by activating the prefab; para. [0142]; avatars view the presentations); and
the interactive object being deployable…by the first user (See Olson, at least para. [0115], owners of the avatars choose how and where they view the digital multimedia presentation from within the prefab).
Olson does not expressly disclose whereby the one or more avatars engage in an activity, the activity being an independent game operating independently of the three-dimensional environment and having its own rules, separate from those of the three-dimensional interactive environment, using the interactive object.
However, Sundaresan discloses a “system and method for creating a virtual world for supporting a consumer experience”. (See Sundaresan, at least Abstract). Sundaresan further describes “Second Life is an Internet-based, `three-dimensional world entirely created by its residents’, or users. It was developed by Linden Research Inc., also known as Linden Lab, and was released in 2003. In Second Life, users are able to interact with other users through their avatar which the user themselves can design using the design features included in the Second Life Viewer. The Second Life Viewer is the client which the users utilize to connect and interact with Second Life. The user's avatar represents them in the game and can be designed to look like themselves or however they want themselves to look like. In this Second Life environment users can "discover the thousands of ways to have fun". This can include playing games, going to dance clubs, shopping, going to events, etc.” (See Sundaresan, at least para. [0028]). Sundaresan further discloses the creation of a virtual store for eBay in Second Life. (See Sundaresan, at least FIG. 1 and associated text; para. [0061]). Sundaresan further discloses whereby the one or more avatars engage in an activity, the activity being an independent game operating independently of the three-dimensional environment and having its own rules, separate from those of the three-dimensional interactive environment, using the interactive object (See Sundaresan, at least para. [0106], to experience the game, users step into a booth, instructions on how to play the game are displayed, for two minutes, the two players will be displayed an image which they must match keywords on before being displayed a new image; the faster the players are able to match keywords, the more points they will score; para. [0026], mini-games and virtual store are linked through Second Life; para. [0062], eBay store interior includes banners that link users to mini-games; claim 8, banner is used by the user to initiate the playing of the game, i.e., the banners are the interactive object used to begin playing the game).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the virtual world environment of Olsen the ability whereby the one or more avatars engage in an activity, the activity being an independent game operating independently of the three-dimensional environment and having its own rules, separate from those of the three-dimensional interactive environment, using the interactive object as disclosed by Sundaresan 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “outsource image recognition from computers (where image recognition processes are difficult and expensive) to humans (who will recognize and tag images for fun).” (See Sundaresan, at least para. [0026]).
Neither Olson nor Sundaresan especially discloses the interactive object being… movable, and removable by the first user.
However, Edwards discloses an “entertainment device” that “includes a display generator arranged to generate for display a representation of an online virtual environment, and to generate for display within said representation of the online virtual environment at least one avatars corresponding to users of at least one remote entertainment device interacting with the online virtual environment.” (See Edwards, at least Abstract). Edwards further discloses the interactive object being…movable, and removable by the first user (See Edwards, at least para. [0170], user buys virtual object from the owner of the avatar displaying virtual object; payment is credited to the avatar displaying virtual object; purchasing user’s avatar is reconfigured to incorporate the purchased item and the seller’s avatar is reconfigured to remove the purchased item. i.e., the seller’s avatar moves/removes the object from its avatar by selling it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the virtual world environment of Olsen and the virtual store and games of Sundaresan the ability of the interactive object being…movable, and removable by the first user as disclosed by Edwards 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide alternate advertising that is the “equivalent of the word-of-mouth means by which knowledge of available products can spread within a buying public.” (See Edwards, at least para. [0006]).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 9, and 15: The combination of Olson and Sundaresan and Edwards discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 14 discussed above.
Olson further discloses wherein the one or more avatars is at least two avatars and includes at least one avatar other than the first avatar (See Olson, at least para. [0107], host chooses which avatars will be invited to the presentation; para. [0136], mom determines which friends and family will be given access to the multimedia presentation by selecting their Second Life avatar names and adding them to the access control list for the virtual real estate she has rented; para. [0139], avatars of family and friends log into Second Life and teleport to the real estate where the multimedia presentation will be shown; avatars enter the prefabricated environment by walking down the incline from the beach to the underwater setting that was generated by activating the prefab; para. [0141], mom welcomes the 40-50 avatars; para. [0142]; avatars view the presentations).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4, 11, and 17: The combination of Olson and Sundaresan and Edwards discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 14 discussed above.
Neither Olson nor Sundaresan expressly discloses offering the interactive object for sale; and conducting virtual and real-world transactions if the offer for sale is accepted by one or more of the users represented by the one or more avatars.
However, Edwards discloses:
offering the interactive object for sale (See Edwards, at least para. [0157], configuration data for an avatar includes identifying data indicating those items visibly associated with tan avatar that are purchasable by the users of other avatars); and
conducting virtual and real-world transactions if the offer for sale is accepted by one or more of the users represented by the one or more avatars (See Edwards, at least para. [0170], user buys virtual object from the owner of the avatar displaying virtual object; payment is credited to the avatar displaying virtual object; purchasing user’s avatar is reconfigured to incorporate the purchased item and the seller’s avatar is reconfigured to remove the purchased item; para. [0172], corresponding real-word items may also be purchased; dialog box indicates that a skirt that an avatar is wearing is available both for an avatar or for a user; para. [01734], if local user chooses to buy the skirt for themselves, they are prompted to provide information relevant to clothing size, a delivery address, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the virtual world environment of Olsen and the virtual storefront system and method of Sundaresan the ability of offering the interactive object for sale; and conducting virtual and real-world transactions if the offer for sale is accepted by one or more of the users represented by the one or more avatars as disclosed by Edwards 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide alternate advertising that is the “equivalent of the word-of-mouth means by which knowledge of available products can spread within a buying public.” (See Edwards, at least para. [0006]).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 5: The combination of Olson and Sundaresan and Edwards discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Olson does not expressly disclose wherein the interactive object includes a storefront that enables one or more avatars to shop within the three-dimensional virtual environment.
However, Sundaresan discloses wherein the interactive object includes a storefront that enables one or more avatars to shop within the three-dimensional virtual environment (See Sundaresan, at least para. [0062], eBay store interior includes banners that link users to mini-games; para. [0048], eBay store is a virtual representation of eBay's auction website, accessible from the virtual 3D environment known as Second Life; in the store, users are able to browse the various search categories of eBay's auctions, much like they would aisles of a typical department store).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Olsen-Sundaresan-Edwards the ability wherein the interactive object includes a storefront that enables one or more avatars to shop within the three-dimensional virtual environment as further disclosed by Sundaresan 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “outsource image recognition from computers (where image recognition processes are difficult and expensive) to humans (who will recognize and tag images for fun).” (See Sundaresan, at least para. [0026]).
Claim 20: The combination of Olson and Sundaresan and Edwards discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Olson further discloses the processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory comprise circuits and software for performing the instructions on the storage medium (See Olson, at least para. [0057], virtual world rendered by computers).
Claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Sundaresan and further in view of Edwards as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of US 2008/0262910 A1 to Altberg et al. (hereinafter “Altberg”).
The combination of Olson and Sundaresan and Edwards discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 14 discussed above.
Olson further discloses the first user remotely monitoring the interactive object (See Olson, at least para. [0142], avatars view the presentations; mom (the first user) is delighted to be able to see the reactions to the presentations as expressed by the avatars).
Neither Olson nor Sundaresan nor Edwards expressly discloses moving the first avatar to a second location within the three-dimensional virtual environment, the second location designated by the first user; and that the first user is at a virtual location not within a visible range of the first avatar to the interactive object within the three-dimensional virtual environment.
However, Altberg discloses systems and methods for “connecting people for real time communications via a virtual reality environment” that includes “a virtual reality server to host a virtual reality world and to present, to a customer in the virtual reality world, an advertisement including a reference assigned to the advertisement.” (See Altberg, at least Abstract). Altberg further discloses an interactive object. (See Altberg, at least para. [0077], virtual bulletin board; para. [0088], telephone icon; para. [0091], virtual telephone). Altberg further discloses moving the first avatar to a second location within the three-dimensional virtual environment, the second location designated by the first user (See Altberg, at least para. [0084], customer avatar is connected to an advertiser avatar and then customer avatar may be teleported to a location in the virtual world to visit a virtual store of the advertiser, i.e., first user is analogous to advertiser avatar and the virtual store of the advertiser is designated by the advertiser; advertiser avatar may be teleported along with the customer avatar to the virtual store); and that the first user is at a virtual location not within a visible range of the first avatar to the interactive object within the three-dimensional virtual environment (See Altberg, at least para. [0084], customer avatar is connected to an advertiser avatar and then customer avatar may be teleported to a location in the virtual world to visit a virtual store of the advertiser, i.e., first user is analogous to advertiser avatar and the virtual store of the advertiser is designated by the advertiser; advertiser avatar may be teleported along with the customer avatar to the virtual store, i.e., the advertiser avatar is no longer within range of the virtual bulletin board but is still connected to it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the virtual world environment of Olsen and the virtual storefront system and method of Sundaresan and the entertainment device of Edwards the ability of moving the first avatar to a second location within the three-dimensional virtual environment, the second location designated by the first user; and that the first user is at a virtual location not within a visible range of the first avatar to the interactive object within the three-dimensional virtual environment as disclosed by Altberg 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to present relevant advertisements and information to the user. (See Altberg, at least para. [0078]).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6-7, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Sundaresan and further in view of Edwards as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of US 2018/0350144 A1 to Rathod (hereinafter “Rathod”).
Claims 6, 12, and 18: The combination of Olson and Sundaresan and Edwards discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 14 discussed above.
Neither Olson nor Sundaresan nor Edwards expressly discloses wherein the interactive object is one of a game table, a pinball machine, a pool table, a swimming pool, a hot tub, a bouncy house, a DJ deck, and a boombox.
However, Rathod discloses systems and methods for “virtual world simulations of the real-world or emulate real-life or real-life activities in virtual world or real life simulator or generating a virtual world based on real environment.” (See Rathod, at least Abstract). Rathod further discloses converting “one or more photos and/or video including video related to dance, particular type of sport match like cricket match, soccer, badminton, golf, baseball, basketball, hockey, tennis match with team or participant members, and associated voice, data and metadata and user provided one or more types of contents including sports commentary, score into virtual world simulation and use or access for generating of simulation for particular type of activity for particular user of network and based on conducting of said activity by particular user generates virtual world or simulation of said activity or recording showing that avatar of said user conducting of said activity at particular place.” (See Rathod, at least para. [0128]). Rathod further discloses wherein the interactive object is one of a game table, a pinball machine, a pool table, a swimming pool, a hot tub, a bouncy house, a DJ deck, and a boombox (See Rathod, at least para. [0127], virtual activities include user swimming in a particular swimming pool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the virtual world environment of Olsen and the virtual storefront system and method of Sundaresan and the entertainment device of Edwards the ability wherein the interactive object is one of a game table, a pinball machine, a pool table, a swimming pool, a hot tub, a bouncy house, a DJ deck, and a boombox as disclosed by Rathod 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to enable players to visit “one or more types of virtual objects and select, collect, win, battle or play and win, claim, compete, capture from said displayed one or more virtual objects or virtual elements or automatically providing one or more types of virtual object or virtual element to user or associate with or add to user's account.” (See Rathod, at least para. [0004]).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7, 13, and 19: The combination of Olson and Sundaresan and Edwards discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 14 discussed above.
Neither Olson nor Sundaresan nor Edwards expressly discloses wherein the interactive object interacting with one or more avatars comprises the one or more avatars playing a card game, playing a board game, playing a pinball machine, playing pool on a pool table, swimming in a pool, soaking in a hot tube, jumping in a bouncy house, creating music with a DJ deck, or playing music with a boombox.
However, Rathod discloses wherein the interactive object interacting with one or more avatars comprises the one or more avatars playing a card game, playing a board game, playing a pinball machine, playing pool on a pool table, swimming in a pool, soaking in a hot tube, jumping in a bouncy house, creating music with a DJ deck, or playing music with a boombox (See Rathod, at least para. [0127], virtual activities include user swimming in a particular swimming pool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the virtual world environment of Olsen and the virtual storefront system and method of Sundaresan and the entertainment device of Edwards the ability wherein the interactive object interacting with one or more avatars comprises the one or more avatars playing a card game, playing a board game, playing a pinball machine, playing pool on a pool table, swimming in a pool, soaking in a hot tube, jumping in a bouncy house, creating music with a DJ deck, or playing music with a boombox as disclosed by Rathod 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to enable players to visit “one or more types of virtual objects and select, collect, win, battle or play and win, claim, compete, capture from said displayed one or more virtual objects or virtual elements or automatically providing one or more types of virtual object or virtual element to user or associate with or add to user's account.” (See Rathod, at least para. [0004]).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights