DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to the amended limitations of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-4, 7-11, 13-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson et al (US 20100083140 A1), in view of Otsuka et al (US 20220095008 A1), and further in view of Terrano (US 20230109386 A1) and Rosales et al (US 20160358188 A1).
RE claim 1, Dawson teaches A computer-implemented method comprising:
rendering a virtual world in a computing environment that mimics a real world, wherein at least one user appears in the virtual world (Fig 1, [0019]);
for each of the plurality of viewing users, determining from a plurality of groups, a group to which a viewing user belongs (Fig 1S106, [0020], [0030], [0035]-[0040] wherein each of the associated key is a group);
determining a virtual representation of the at least one user that is mapped to the group among multiple virtual representations of the at least one user (Fig 1S108, [0021], [0025]-[0027], [0035]-[0040]); and
rendering the virtual representation of the at least one user in the virtual world to a device associated with the viewing user; wherein based on the determined mapping of the group to the virtual representation, the virtual representation of the at least one user in the virtual world rendered on the device associated with the viewing user appears at the same time differently from the virtual representation of the at least one user in the virtual world rendered on another device associated with another viewing user of the plurality of viewing users (Fig 1S108-110, [0021], [0035]-[0042]).
Dawson is silent RE: receiving requests from a plurality of viewing users for rendering the virtual world. However Otsuka teaches receiving requests from a plurality of viewing users for entering/participating in a virtual world in abstract, [0012], [0018]- [0019] for controlling viewer access of distribution and display of a live event in virtual space. This is readily available or can be equally applied in Dawson in order to render the VW in response to the viewer request to effectively display the VW to the viewing user where the first user is in.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Dawson a system and method of receiving requests from a plurality of viewing users for rendering the virtual world, as suggested by Otsuka, to effectively display the VW to the viewing user where the first user is in based on the request and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
Dawson as modified by Otsuka is silent RE the method further including setting priority ranking to the virtual representations of the at least one user for rendering, and using the priority ranking of the virtual representations responsive to determining that the viewing user belongs to more than one of the plurality of groups, to associate the group with the viewing user.
However Terrano teaches setting priority ranking to the virtual representations of the at least one user for rendering, and using the priority ranking of the virtual representations to display the virtual representations to a user belonging to one of the plurality of groups in Fig 3,5,7, abstract, [0006], [0093]-[0095], [0182] wherein the users are assigned a virtual representation associated with a group (relationship type) based on a range of social relevancy score. In addition Rosales teaches each user group may be associated with priority data that indicates which user group has a higher priority than another user group while choosing the appropriate version for content presentation to assist in selecting a user group in case a user belongs to multiple user groups [0046]. This is readily available or can be equally applied in Dawson to resolve conflict in choosing the appropriate user representation as Dawson readily teaches resolve conflict based on preference or other criteria in [0031], with the group/relevance specific priorities taught by Terrano and Rosales.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Dawson as modified by Otsuka a system and method setting priority ranking to the virtual representations of the at least one user for rendering, and using the priority ranking of the virtual representations responsive to determining that the viewing user belongs to more than one of the plurality of groups, to associate the group with the viewing user, as set forth above applying Terrano and Rosales, for effectively choosing the appropriate user representation resolving conflict within the multiple groups and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Dawson teaches wherein the determining of the group to which the viewing user belongs includes, responsive to determining that the viewing user does not belong to any group, determining that the viewing user belongs to a default group ([0041]).
RE claim 3, Dawson as modified by Otsuka, Terrano and Rosales teaches wherein the determining of the group to which the viewing user belongs includes, responsive to determining that the viewing user belongs to a plurality of groups, determining that the viewing user belongs to a group associated with the virtual representation having a highest priority among the virtual representations of the at least one user, which are associated with the plurality of groups (Rosales [0046]).
RE claim 4, Dawson teaches further including, based on a request from an owner of the virtual representation of the at least one user: creating groups and mapping the plurality of the viewing users to the groups; associating each of the groups to at least one virtual representation among the multiple representations of the at least one user, wherein a group among the groups is associated with a different virtual representation of the at least one user from another group among the groups; and storing in a database the mapping of the plurality of the viewing users to the groups and the associations of the groups to the virtual representations of the at least on user ([0025]-[0026], [0034]-[0041]).
RE claim 6, Dawson as modified by Otsuka, Terrano and Rosales teaches wherein responsive to determining that the viewing user belongs to a plurality of groups, determining that the viewing user belongs to a group associated with the virtual representation having a highest priority among the virtual representations of the at least one user, which are associated with the plurality of groups (Rosales [0046]).
RE claim 7, Dawson teaches wherein for each of the plurality of viewing users, the determining of the virtual representation of the at least one user that is mapped to the group and the rendering of the virtual representation of the at least one user in the virtual world to the device associated with the viewing user, are performed with respect to all users in viewing range of the viewing user in the virtual world ([0019], [0024], [0030]-[0031] wherein avatar for each user entering the viewing user’s display screen areas will be presented according to the defined grouping).
Claims 8-11, 13-14 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1--4, 6-7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Dawson teaches A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith ([0050]).
Claims 15-18, 20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1-4, 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Dawson teaches A system comprising: at least one computer processor; and at least one memory device coupled with the at least one computer processor ([0045]).
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson as modified by Otsuka, Terrano and Rosales, and further in view of Weaver et al (US 20050108329 A1).
RE claim 5, Dawson teaches wherein the mapping of the plurality of the viewing users to the groups and the associations of the groups to the virtual representations of the at least on user are updated ([0008], [0023], [0034]-[0035]).
Dawson as modified by Otsuka, Terrano and Rosales is silent RE updating periodically. However Weaver teaches in [0056].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Dawson as modified by Otsuka, Terrano and Rosales a system and method of the updating periodically, as set forth above applying Weaver, as a system/application choice and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 12 and 19 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614