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
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on 1/21/2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 16 and 18 - 21 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 21st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejections on pages 11 – 15: Applicant contends that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea and cannot be performed in the human mind. This argument is not persuasive.
When considered as a whole, the amended independent claim 1 describes collecting information, evaluating that information, making determinations based on that evaluation and presenting results and access restrictions accordingly. Such operations fall within the abstract groupings of: (a) mental processes (e.g., evaluating context, determining shareability, deciding what to show or restrict), and (b) certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., managing access to collaborative spaces controlling visibility of content, and modifying user permissions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Applicant asserts that the claims “cannot possibly be performed in the human mind,” particularly due to partitioning virtual environments and modifying visualizations. However, this argument is not persuasive because the proper inquiry is whether the claim recites concepts that can be performed mentally is in substance, not whether a human can practically perform them at scale or speed. Further, the recited steps—evaluating context, assigning levels of shareability, deciding which content to show or restrict, as well as modifying user permissions— are all conceptual decision-making processes that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The fact that the claim is implemented using a computer or applied to a virtual environment does not remove it from the mental processes category. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Applicant further asserts that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention improves computer-related technology by addressing privacy and security in virtual environments. However, the claims do not recite: (a) a specific data structure, (b) a specific security mechanism, nor (c) any technical implementation detailing how the claimed functionality is achieved. Instead, the claims recite result-oriented functional language, such as: assigning the degree of shareability, presenting modified/privatized visualizations, and modifying user functionality. These limitations describe what is achieved, not how the computer is technologically improved to achieve it. Accordingly, the claims do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technical field—refer to MPEP § 2106.05(a).
For at least the reasons above, the claims recite an abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 15 – 17: Applicant’s arguments traversing the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5, 8 – 10, 12, 15 – 16, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant asserts that the rejection fails to consider all claim limitations and cites MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2143.03. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection does consider all claim limitations, including the newly added limitations. Furthermore, under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., an obviousness determination: (i) does not require a single reference to explicitly disclose every limitation, and (ii) permits reliance on a combination of references and reasonable interferences that would have been made by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The proper inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, not whether each limitation is identically disclosed in a single reference.
Applicant argues that neither Ghatage nor Rey teaches a “degree of shareability.” This argument is not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed “degree of shareability” is not limited to a specific numerical metric of proprietary algorithm, but broadly encompasses: any value, score, classification, or rule used to determine whether and how content is shared. Ghatage’s disclosed scoring and ranking content relevance or suitability based on contextual factors, combined with Rey’s feature-vector based determinations constitute a quantification of sharing suitability—which reasonably corresponds to the claimed “degree of shareability,” render the claimed “degree of shareability” at least obvious, as both references disclose evaluating content and assigning a value used to control sharing or presentation.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the references do not disclose “privatizing “a collaboration segment based on shareability. This argument is not persuasive. Under BRI, “privatizing” encompasses restricting, filtering, or limiting access to content or segments. With the mapping of Rey’s filtering visual elements based on contextual evaluation as well as preventing certain elements from being shared or displayed, combined with, Ghatage’s contextual scoring and environment-based evaluation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply such filtering at the segment level of a virtual environment, thereby “privatizing” those segments based on evaluated criteria.
Applicant further argues that neither reference teach “presenting modified… based on the degree of shareability.” This argument is not persuasive. Under BRI, the limitation encompasses presenting content that has been altered, filtered, or selectively displayed based on contextual criteria. Rey modifies visual content elements (e.g., flagging, filtering, and excluding portions of content) as well as presenting only the approved subset of visual content. The use of client-server architectures in Rey inherently involves sharing such content across networks (including social or collaborative platforms). Thus, presenting filtered/modified content to users or systems based on contextual evaluation meets the claimed limitation.
Lastly, Applicant argues that neither reference teaches modifying user functionality. This argument is not persuasive. Under BRI, “modifying user functionality” broadly includes enabling/disabling user actions, altering user permissions, restricting interaction capabilities. Rey’s disclosure teaches restricting what users can see or interact with based on content filtering. Restricting visibility inherently modifies what a user can do (e.g., interact with or respond to content). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to extend such restrictions to broader user functionality controls (e.g., viewing vs. interacting), especially in collaborative or shared environments as suggested by Ghatage.
For the reasons set above, the combination of Ghatage and Rey teaches or renders obvious all limitations of the independent claims, including the newly added limitations, and provides sufficient motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
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 – 16 and 18 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Firstly, it should be stated that claim 1 is being used as the most representative of the independent claim set 1, 8 and 15.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
analyzing, by a computing device, a virtual environment;
partitioning, by the computing device, the virtual environment into a plurality of virtual collaboration segments
determining, by the computing device, a plurality of contextual information and a degree of shareability associated with the virtual environment based on the analysis
privatizing, by the computing device, at least one virtual collaboration segment of the plurality of virtual collaboration segments by assigning the degree of shareability to the at least one virtual collaboration segments based on the determination;
presenting, by the computing device, modified and privatized social media content visualizations to a social media network associated with a user on the at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the degree of shareability;
wherein presenting the modified and privatized social media content visualizations comprises modifying a user functionality of the user in the least one virtual collaboration segment
The claim limitations above fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category specifically: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities) and classification and filtering of content (presenting the virtual environment associated with a degree of shareability). As disclosed in the specification in ¶0019, the claimed invention has “the capacity to improve the technical fields of virtual/augmented reality and social networking by not only generating privatized virtual environments for presentation and collaboration within social networks.” However, claim 1 recites the abstract idea(s) of a mental process and can practically be performed in the human mind (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Specifically, the claim language recites steps of “analyzing… a virtual environment,” “partitioning… the virtual environment into a plurality of virtual collaboration segments,” “determining… a plurality of contextual information…,” as well as then “presenting… social media content to a social media network” (e.g., steps a – d). In order for these steps to be performed, it requires observation for the detection of media content, judgment for determining social interactions, and evaluation to privatize based on a degree of shareability.
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1, 8 and 15, The judicial exception(s) is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and their additional feature element(s) of one or more processors (from claim 15); one or more systems (from claim 15); as well as one or more computer-readable mediums (from claims 8 and 15), individually and in combination, merely are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). These element features including the system references components are recited at a high level of generality and are performed distinctively from generic system components without having each function to generally “apply it” to a computer, refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Instead, the claims use conventional computing technology as a tool to execute mental steps or social media management tasks.
Thus, these limitations are also “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (refer to MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, this is indicative of the fact that the claim set has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore, the claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
Step 2B: For independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (e.g., an inventive concept). As indicated in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the additional element(s) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The same analysis applies here in 2B analysis and does not provide an inventive concept.
For dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, 16, 18 – 21, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitation steps of:
Claims 2 – 3 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the claim limitations recite segmentation and classification refinements (generic data organization).
Claims 4, 11 and 19 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the claim limitations recite assigning permission levels (generic access-control operation), which is a part of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (i.e., method of organizing human activity and social strategy).
Claims 5 and 12 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the claim limitations recite receiving user input for engagement (generic user-interface input/post-solution activity), which is a part of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (generic access-control operation), which is a part of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (i.e., method of organizing human activity and social strategy).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims because reassigning permission levels is a part of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (i.e., user roles) (generic access-control operation), which is a part of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (i.e., method of organizing human activity and social strategy).
Claims 7, 14 and 21 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims because displaying participant data and administrative options (display of information) is a part of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (generic access-control operation), which is a part of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (i.e., method of organizing human activity and social strategy).
Claims 9, 10, 16 and 18 are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims because segmenting, identifying collaboration, and assigning shareability (generic data segmentation) are all parts of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (generic access-control operation), which is a part of live sharing virtual collaborative content through social networks (i.e., method of organizing human activity and social strategy).
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 8 - 10, 12, 15 – 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghatage (U.S. Pub No. 20190325771 A1) in view of Rey (U.S. Pub No. 20230042015 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
Ghatage discloses:
analyzing, by a computing device, a virtual environment; [¶0016]: The VR platform curates necessary data and converts it into a readable format in order to properly analyze elements within the virtual environment.
determining, by the computing device, a plurality of contextual information and a degree of shareability associated with the virtual environment based on the analysis; [¶0047]: A scoring parameter is used to automatically determine a strength/degree of relevance of an element.
Ghatage does not explicitly disclose the following limitations below. Thus, Rey teaches:
partitioning, by the computing device, the virtual environment into a plurality of virtual collaboration segments; Fig. 2; [¶0027]: Dimensions are divided into different sharing context parameters by a feature vector.
privatizing, by the computing device, at least one virtual collaboration segment of the plurality of virtual collaboration segments by assigning the degree of shareability to the at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the determination and [¶0046]: Feature vectors may assign different virtual domains certain label elements (e.g., a “work” label or a “personal” label) in order to potentially filter particular data.
presenting, by the computing device, modified and privatized social media content visualizations to a social media network associated with a user on the at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the degree of shareability. [¶0022 - 0023]: A visual interface content allows a plethora of visual content to be shared with one or more remote computing devices. Additionally, “the shared visual interface content includes one or more visual content elements that the user intends to share with other meeting participants, though may additionally include visual content elements that the user would prefer not to share.”
wherein presenting the modified and privatized social media content visualizations comprises modifying a user functionality of the user in the at least one virtual collaboration segment; [¶0063 – 0066]: Specified visual content may be obscured. Alternatively, the disclosure teaches further automatic/manual filtering given different circumstances. Visual content elements may also be categorized to vector clusters; the client device may automatically respond to the vector cluster and display appropriate content with respect to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghatage’s disclosed collaborative virtual environment with partitioning the virtual environment into a plurality of virtual collaboration segments, privatizing at least one virtual collaboration segments based on the determination, as well as presenting social media content to a social media network associated with a user on at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the degree of shareability, as taught by Rey, in order to properly address privacy concerns with accessing certain VR/AR functionalities.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16:
The combination of Ghatage and Rey discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Ghatage does not explicitly disclose the following limitations below. Thus, Rey teaches:
segmenting, by the computing device, the virtual environment into the plurality of virtual collaboration segments; and “Fig. 2; [¶0027]: Dimensions are divided into different sharing context parameters by a feature vector.”
classifying, by the computing device, a group of users associated with the social media network for access to the plurality of virtual collaboration segments. [¶0048] Element feature vectors may be assigned to a variety of different domains, with each having a different limiting function from one another. Virtual domains are then able to correspond to “projects at work, different jobs held by the same user, different types of personal content the user may access (e.g., health-related, family-related, finance-related, entertainment-related), etc.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghatage’s disclosed collaborative virtual environment with segmenting the virtual environment into the plurality of virtual collaboration segments as well as classifying a group of users associated with the social media network for access to the plurality of virtual collaboration segments, as taught by Rey, in order to properly address privacy concerns with accessing certain VR/AR functionalities.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 18:
The combination of Ghatage and Rey discloses all limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16 respectively.
Ghatage discloses:
identifying, by the computing device, a virtual collaboration associated with the virtual environment; Figs. 1A – 1D; [¶0020]: The disclosure entails a VR platform that supports a virtual environment for hosting a virtual workshop (i.e., collaboration).
Ghatage does not disclose assigning the degree of shareability to at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the plurality of contextual information. Thus, Rey teaches:
assigning, by the computing device, the degree of shareability to at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the plurality of contextual information. [¶0030]: Element feature vectors are able to differentiate between data pertaining to a user’s personal life as well as any general data and keeps it hidden during a virtual meeting for privacy purposes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghatage’s disclosed collaborative virtual environment with partitioning the virtual environment into a plurality of virtual collaboration segments, privatizing at least one virtual collaboration segments based on the determination, as well as presenting social media content to a social media network associated with a user on at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the degree of shareability, as taught by Rey, in order to properly address privacy concerns with accessing certain VR/AR functionalities.
Regarding claims 5 and 12:
The combination of Ghatage and Rey discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively.
Ghatage discloses:
receiving, by the computing device, an input from the user indicating a desire to engage the virtual environment depicted on the social media network as a viewer or a participant. Fig. 2; [¶0066]: A user is able to interact with one or more devices paired with the system, including providing a request to access the virtual environment.
Regarding claim 15:
Ghatage discloses:
one or more processors; [¶0003]: One or more processors are paired with a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
one or more computer-readable memories; [¶0003]: One or more processors are paired with a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to analyze a virtual environment; [¶0016]: The VR platform is able to curate data and instructions based on user interactions within the virtual workshop. The disclosure is then able to conduct an analysis on solutions and user feedback.
program instructions to determine a plurality of contextual information and a degree of shareability associated with the virtual environment based on the analysis; [¶0047]: Scoring parameters are used to determine a strength/degree of relevance of an element (e.g., a user).
Ghatage does not explicitly disclose the following limitations below. Thus, Rey teaches:
program instructions to partition virtual environment into a plurality of virtual collaboration segments; Fig. 2; [¶0027]: Dimensions are divided into different sharing context parameters by a feature vector.
program instructions to privatize at least one virtual collaboration segment of the plurality of virtual collaboration segments by assigning the degree of shareability to the at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the determination; and [¶0046]: Feature vectors may assign different virtual domains certain label elements (e.g., a “work” label or a “personal” label) in order to potentially filter particular data.
program instructions to present modified and privatized social media content visualizations to a social media network associated with a user on the at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the degree of shareability; [¶0022 - 0023]: A visual interface content allows a plethora of visual content to be shared with one or more remote computing devices. Additionally, “the shared visual interface content includes one or more visual content elements that the user intends to share with other meeting participants, though may additionally include visual content elements that the user would prefer not to share.”
wherein the program instructions to present the modified and privatized social media content visualizations comprises program instructions to modify a user functionality of the user in the least one virtual collaboration segment. [¶0063 – 0066]: Specified visual content may be obscured. Alternatively, the disclosure teaches further automatic/manual filtering given different circumstances. Visual content elements may also be categorized to vector clusters; the client device may automatically respond to the vector cluster and display appropriate content with respect to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghatage’s disclosed collaborative virtual environment with partitioning the virtual environment into a plurality of virtual collaboration segments, privatizing at least one virtual collaboration segments based on the determination, as well as presenting social media content to a social media network associated with a user on at least one virtual collaboration segment based on the degree of shareability, as taught by Rey, in order to properly address privacy concerns with accessing certain VR/AR functionalities.
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Ghatage and Rey discloses all limitations of claim 15.
Ghatage discloses:
program instructions to display a total number of participants within the virtual environment hosted on the social media network, a role of each of the participants, and an option for an administrator to control the permission level allocated to each of the participants. Fig. 1C; [¶0028]: Users within a virtual workshop are displayed via avatar. Additionally, [¶0025]: roles are assigned to objects, which are associated with a group of users to then play out within the virtual workshop.
Claims 4, 6 – 7, 11, 13 – 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghatage (U.S. Pub No. 20190325771 A1) in view of Rey (U.S. Pub No. 20230042015 A1) in further view of Faulker (U.S. Pub No. 20220103566 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 19:
Ghatage discloses:
assigning, by the computing device, a permission level to each user of the group based on the classification of the group of users; [¶0025]: Users within the virtual workshop may be assigned an ‘object’ relating to a role, granting them access to additional information other users are not able to see.
However, Ghatage does not disclose the classification accounting for one or more of a user participation level, a user virtual behavior pattern, and a user role. Thus, Faulkner teaches:
wherein the classification accounts for one or more of a user participation level, a user virtual behavior pattern, and a user role. Figs. 1A – 1C; [¶0032]: The system is able to review analytics based on various types of data inputted into the system in order to determine/modify roles and permissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghatage and Rey to provide the ability of an automatic configuration and management of user permissions based on roles and user activity, as taught by Faulkner, in order to improve management tools for access permissions for large-scale, multi-service systems—which would be “obvious to try” to increase effectiveness of classifying users based on data inputted and stored by the users.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20:
Ghatage does not disclose reassigning the permission level based on the plurality of contextual information nor wherein the contextual information comprising at least a participant threshold associated with the presentation of the virtual environment on the social media network. However, Faulkner teaches:
reassigning, by the computing device, the permission level based on the plurality of contextual information; [¶0036]: Techniques are used to determine a particular tag/role for users. Each role is permitted access to specific content shared on the platform.
wherein the contextual information comprises at least a participant threshold associated with the presentation of the virtual environment on the social media network. [¶0033]: “For instance, if the system determines that the first user was a presenter in a threshold number of previous events having a specific event type, e.g., a company meeting, and other participants in those events were historically audience members, the system can determine that the roles of the other users 162 can be audience members.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghatage’s disclosed collaborative virtual environment with an automatic configuration and management of user permissions based on roles and user activity, as taught by Faulkner, as “there is an ongoing need for improved management tools for access permissions for large-scale, multi-service systems.”
Regarding claim 7 and 14:
Ghatage does not disclose displaying a total number of participants within the virtual environment hosted on the social media network, a role of each of the participants, and an option for an administrator to control the permission level allocated to each of the participants. However, Faulkner teaches:
displaying, by the computing device, a total number of participants within the virtual environment hosted on the social media network, a role of each of the participants, and an option for an administrator to control the permission level allocated to each of the participants. Fig. 4A; [¶0060]: The organizer of an event is able to provide logistics and information for said event (i.e., list of participants, location of the event, event type, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghatage’s disclosed collaborative virtual environment with an automatic configuration and management of user permissions based on roles and user activity, as taught by Faulkner, as there is an ongoing need for improved management tools for access permissions for large-scale, multi-service systems.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Olvera (U.S. Pub No. US20230359832A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “a method that includes (a) obtaining context information that is associated with a physical object, and is related to a context concerning the physical object, (b) searching a database for resultant information, based on the context information, (c) extracting and inferencing intents and entities, from the context information and the resultant information, (d) providing the intents and entities to a virtual assistant, and (e) facilitating a conversation between the virtual assistant and a user.”
Atalla (U.S. Pub No. US20170235438A1) is pertinent because it relates to “a business platform, and more particularly to an interactive social media and business platform used to selectively share profile information, including work schedule information, with authorized or approved users, in real-time.”
Baron (U.S. Pub No. US20080229215A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “a method and system for virtual interaction between multiple users of a virtual social environment. The method and system disclosed herein provides a virtual social environment for multiple users including a first user and a second user to socially interact. The virtual social environment enables the first user to host multiple multimedia in the virtual social environment.”
Ford (U.S. Pub No. US20170041296A1) is pertinent because it is related to “improved secure exchange system features include a federated search facility, hybrid encryption management (adjustable encryption key management), anonymous IRM, disassembled storage of data as chunks rather than files, asynchronous notification process/integrated file upload and messaging, an identity facility, multi-factor authentication, dynamic access authorization, and various enhancements to a customizable exchange system.”
O’Malley (U.S. Patent No. US12094018B1) is pertinent because it is directed to “computer implemented methods in which a project is generated and terms of participation for authorized contributions to the project are established. Authorized contributions from authorized participants are electronically stored; each authorized contribution is associated with an authorized participant and an authorship content module is run to evaluate an authorship condition for each authorized contribution.”
Dolev (U.S. Patent No. US11846981B2) is pertinent because it is related to “the field of extended reality. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to systems, methods, and devices for providing productivity applications using an extended reality environment.”
Smith (U.S. Pub No. US20190163794A1) is pertinent because it is related to “systems and methods for addressing concerns relating to the credibility of information posted on a social platform. In particular embodiments, a social-networking system may automatically generate and/or aggregate contextual information related to a post and display the contextual information with the post.”
Wang (U.S. Pub No. US20090144392A1) is pertinent because it is related to “social networking websites and in particular to sharing on a social networking website digital content obtained from an external system.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bill Chen whose telephone number is (571)270-0660. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/BILL CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights