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 (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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “the at least one non-compliant modal”.
This phrase doesn’t match with previous instance. The phrase should be “the at least one non-compliant modal cue”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-10 and 12-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorshid (US Pat. Pub. No. 20240045704 “Khorshid”) in view of Nair et al. (Us Pat. Pub. No. 20230014321 “Nair”).
Regarding claim 1 Khorshid teaches : A method for optimizing a virtual behavior of at least one participant in a Metaverse (“[0014]…..Another technical advantage of the embodiments may include providing proactive outreach for both application developers and users as the XR assistant avatar may deliver relevant information at the right time to users and intelligent suggestions to the application developer regarding how to integrate their applications into the metaverse”),, the method comprising:
determining, by an electronic device, at least one Metaverse context ; identifying, by the electronic device, a real-world behavior of the at least one participant in association with immersion in the Metaverse (“[0154]…… At step 1130, the AR/VR system 130 may determine whether to morph the XR assistant avatar based on the detected change in the context of the first user. At step 1140, the AR/VR system 130 may detect one or more user behaviors and user sentiments associated with the first user”);
generating, by the electronic device and based on the at least one context, a virtual behavior corresponding to the real-world behavior (“[0148] In particular embodiments, the customization may include rendering the XR assistant avatar in a way that it looks more animated or realistic. In other words, rendering the first or second output image of the XR assistant avatar may comprise rendering the XR assistant avatar as a human-like avatar, meaning it may have a humanoid appearance. As an example and not by way of limitation, the XR assistant avatar may look like other users in the VR space. Thus, the XR assistant avatar may have motion and audio cues that are more animated and/or realistic to convey responses and emotions better to the user”) and
rendering, by the electronic device and based on the virtual behavior, an avatar of the at least one participant in the Metaverse (“[0154]……. At step 1160, the AR/VR system 130 may render, for the one or more displays of the XR display device, a second output image of the XR assistant avatar, wherein the XR assistant avatar is morphed to have the second form and the second pose with respect to the first user responsive to determining to morph the XR assistant avatar based on the detected change in the context of the first user, wherein the second form of the XR assistant avatar is based on one or more of its voice, speech, emotion, tone, pitch, appearance, size, shape, clothing, orientation, position, depth, movement, gesture, facial expression, color, shading, outline, brightness, luminescence, or transparency, and wherein rendering the second output image comprising rendering the XR assistant avatar as a human-like avatar or an animated object or icon”),
wherein the identifying the real-world behavior of the at least one participant comprises: determining, by the electronic device, a plurality of modal cues associated with the at least one participant; and determining, by the electronic device and based on the plurality of modal cues, the real-world behavior of the at least one participant (“[0007]….The customization of the XR assistant avatar may be triggered by the system responsive to different informative cues. As an example and not by way of limitation, such informative cues may include changes in application/game state, changes in the real-world or virtual environment, or the user's actions or context. The customization may also include rendering the XR assistant avatar in an animated/realistic way, e.g., humanlike”),
wherein the generating of the virtual behavior comprises: detecting, by the electronic device, at least one non-compliant modal cue among the plurality of modal cues (“[0144] Taking the change of the user's actions as another example, the XR assistant avatar may be customized to react in an appropriate way to the user's action”);
However Khorshid is silent about determining, by an electronic device, delta difference scores between behavioral scores corresponding to the real-world behavior and reference behavioral scores associated with the at least one Metaverse context;
Nair teaches determining, by an electronic device, delta difference scores between behavioral scores corresponding to real-world behavior and reference behavioral scores associated with at least one Metaverse context (“[0008]……..Thus, for example, when avatar behavior scores return sufficiently close to baseline values, e.g., when the difference between current and baseline performance scores falls below some predetermined threshold, or falls below such threshold for longer than a predetermined time period, avatar markings may be removed. This provides incentive for users to correct their improper behavior. [0032] As the behavior score of avatar 200 has fallen to 1.3 (e.g., above a threshold difference from historical score 3.2 and thus indicating excessive inappropriate or undesired behavior, where this threshold value may be any suitable value), server 102 performs an action upon avatar 200, to punish avatar 200 and/or reduce any risk to other avatars”);
Khorshid and Nair are analogous art as both of them are related to virtual environment.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Khorshid by determining, by an electronic device, delta difference scores between behavioral scores corresponding to real-world behavior and reference behavioral scores associated with at least one Metaverse context as taught by Nair.
The motivation for the above is to differentiate between good and bad behavior.
Khorshid modified by Nair teaches detecting, by the electronic device, at least one non-compliant modal cue among the plurality of modal cues based on the a delta difference scores (Nair “[0031] In FIG. 2C, avatar 200 continues its abusive behavior, continuing to direct verbal insults at avatar 202.[0032] As the behavior score of avatar 200 has fallen to 1.3 (e.g., above a threshold difference from historical score 3.2 and thus indicating excessive inappropriate or undesired behavior, where this threshold value may be any suitable value), server 102 performs an action upon avatar 200, to punish avatar 200 and/or reduce any risk to other avatars”);
substituting, by the electronic device, the at least one non-compliant modal cue with at least one compliant modal cue to reduce the delta difference scores; and generating, by the electronic device, the virtual behavior, wherein the virtual behavior comprises the at least one compliant modal cue (Khorshid “[0144]….. If the user is angry, the XR assistant avatar may be apologetic. In other words, the XR assistant avatar may not merely mimic the user's emotions or actions, but rather react in a customized way to improve the user's experience. FIG. 10 illustrates an example rendering of the XR assistant avatar responsive to user behaviors. In FIG. 10, a user 1010 wearing an XR device as the client system 138 may be exploring the VR or real world 1015. The user 1010 may get excited and be cheering. The AR/VR system 130 may detect such behavior and accordingly render the XR assistant avatar 1020 as also being excited and cheerful. Customizing the XR assistant avatar responsive to the change of context may be an effective solution for addressing the technical challenge of determining when to customize the XR assistant avatar as the change of content may provide informative cues useful for determining what customizations may be more suitable, interesting, and engaging for a user”).
Regarding claim 13 Khorshid teaches An electronic device (Fig. 15) for optimizing a virtual behavior of at least one participant in a Metaverse (“[0014]…..Another technical advantage of the embodiments may include providing proactive outreach for both application developers and users as the XR assistant avatar may deliver relevant information at the right time to users and intelligent suggestions to the application developer regarding how to integrate their applications into the metaverse”), wherein the electronic device comprising:
a memory; a processor; and a Metaverse personality controller (Fig. 15 element 1504, 1502 and controller is integrated part of the processor) coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine at least one Metaverse context, identify a real-world behavior of the at least one participant (“[0154]…… At step 1130, the AR/VR system 130 may determine whether to morph the XR assistant avatar based on the detected change in the context of the first user. At step 1140, the AR/VR system 130 may detect one or more user behaviors and user sentiments associated with the first user”);
generate, based on the at least one Metaverse context, a virtual behavior corresponding to the real-world behavior (“[0148] In particular embodiments, the customization may include rendering the XR assistant avatar in a way that it looks more animated or realistic. In other words, rendering the first or second output image of the XR assistant avatar may comprise rendering the XR assistant avatar as a human-like avatar, meaning it may have a humanoid appearance. As an example and not by way of limitation, the XR assistant avatar may look like other users in the VR space. Thus, the XR assistant avatar may have motion and audio cues that are more animated and/or realistic to convey responses and emotions better to the user”), and
render, based on the virtual behavior, an avatar of the at least one participant in the Metaverse (“[0154]……. At step 1160, the AR/VR system 130 may render, for the one or more displays of the XR display device, a second output image of the XR assistant avatar, wherein the XR assistant avatar is morphed to have the second form and the second pose with respect to the first user responsive to determining to morph the XR assistant avatar based on the detected change in the context of the first user, wherein the second form of the XR assistant avatar is based on one or more of its voice, speech, emotion, tone, pitch, appearance, size, shape, clothing, orientation, position, depth, movement, gesture, facial expression, color, shading, outline, brightness, luminescence, or transparency, and wherein rendering the second output image comprising rendering the XR assistant avatar as a human-like avatar or an animated object or icon”),
wherein the processor is further configured to: detect at least one non-compliant modal cue among plurality of modal cues (“[0144] Taking the change of the user's actions as another example, the XR assistant avatar may be customized to react in an appropriate way to the user's action. If the user is excited, the XR assistant avatar may be excited too. If the user is angry, the XR assistant avatar may be apologetic. In other words, the XR assistant avatar may not merely mimic the user's emotions or actions”);
However Khorshid is silent about determine delta difference scores between behavioral scores corresponding to the real-world behavior and reference behavioral scores associated with the at least one Metaverse context;
Nair teaches determining, delta difference scores between behavioral scores corresponding to real-world behavior and reference behavioral scores associated with at least one Metaverse context (“[0008]……..Thus, for example, when avatar behavior scores return sufficiently close to baseline values, e.g., when the difference between current and baseline performance scores falls below some predetermined threshold, or falls below such threshold for longer than a predetermined time period, avatar markings may be removed. This provides incentive for users to correct their improper behavior. [0032] As the behavior score of avatar 200 has fallen to 1.3 (e.g., above a threshold difference from historical score 3.2 and thus indicating excessive inappropriate or undesired behavior, where this threshold value may be any suitable value), server 102 performs an action upon avatar 200, to punish avatar 200 and/or reduce any risk to other avatars”);
Khorshid and Nair are analogous art as both of them are related to virtual environment.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Khorshid by determining, by an electronic device, delta difference scores between behavioral scores corresponding to real-world behavior and reference behavioral scores associated with at least one Metaverse context as taught by Nair.
The motivation for the above is to differentiate between good and bad behavior.
Khorshid modified by Nair teaches detect, at least one non-compliant modal cue among a plurality of modal cues based on the a delta difference scores (Nair “[0031] In FIG. 2C, avatar 200 continues its abusive behavior, continuing to direct verbal insults at avatar 202.[0032] As the behavior score of avatar 200 has fallen to 1.3 (e.g., above a threshold difference from historical score 3.2 and thus indicating excessive inappropriate or undesired behavior, where this threshold value may be any suitable value), server 102 performs an action upon avatar 200, to punish avatar 200 and/or reduce any risk to other avatars”);
substitute, the at least one non-compliant modal cue with at least one compliant modal cue to reduce the delta difference scores; and generate, the virtual behavior comprising the at least one compliant modal cue (Khorshid “[0144]….. If the user is angry, the XR assistant avatar may be apologetic. In other words, the XR assistant avatar may not merely mimic the user's emotions or actions, but rather react in a customized way to improve the user's experience. FIG. 10 illustrates an example rendering of the XR assistant avatar responsive to user behaviors. In FIG. 10, a user 1010 wearing an XR device as the client system 138 may be exploring the VR or real world 1015. The user 1010 may get excited and be cheering. The AR/VR system 130 may detect such behavior and accordingly render the XR assistant avatar 1020 as also being excited and cheerful. Customizing the XR assistant avatar responsive to the change of context may be an effective solution for addressing the technical challenge of determining when to customize the XR assistant avatar as the change of content may provide informative cues useful for determining what customizations may be more suitable, interesting, and engaging for a user”).
Regarding claim 7 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches wherein the substituting of the at least one non-compliant modal cue with the at least one compliant modal cue comprises performing at least one corrective action associated with the at least one non-compliant modal and the avatar (Khorshid “[0144] ….If the user is angry, the XR assistant avatar may be apologetic. In other words, the XR assistant avatar may not merely mimic the user's emotions or actions, but rather react in a customized way to improve the user's experience”).
Regarding claim 9 Khorshid Modified by Nair teaches displaying, by the electronic device, at least one message on a screen of the electronic device, wherein the at least one message is configured to indicate that at least one corrective action associated with the avatar (Nair “[0032]…… In this example, server 102 marks avatar 200 as an abusive character by changing its color, and applying a text-based “ABUSIVE CHARACTER” banner 204 above avatar 200. [0034] In FIG. 2E, avatar 200 then engages in improper or undesired behavior by getting into a dispute with avatar 202, where disputes may be detected as below, via detected language, audio volume, speech (words indicative of conflict), or the like. [0035]….. That is, server 102 may allot a certain amount of time after a performance score threshold is breached before marking, to allow the breaching avatar to remedy its performance, allow for correction of simple errors, or the like. Similarly, server 102 may alter the performance score threshold, or amount of time after a performance score threshold is breached before marking, for either one or both parties to a dispute, to allow for a cooling off period and give each avatar a chance to recover. [0040]….. These devices may provide, for example, visual, audio, and haptic feedback that present the perspectives and attention-directing cues such as described herein”).
Regarding claim 10 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches wherein the at least one Metaverse context comprises a type of virtual environmental setup generated for the avatar, and wherein the type of virtual environmental setup comprises at least one of a public speech, a corporate meeting, a casual hangout, a social event, and a private meeting (Khorshid “[0116]…. In particular embodiments, the context engine 220 may also determine world/social events based on world/social updates (e.g., weather changes, a friend getting online). The social updates may comprise events that a user is subscribed to, (e.g., friend's birthday, posts, comments, other notifications)”).
Regarding claim 12 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches wherein the plurality of modal cues comprises at least one of an audio cue and a visual cue (Khorshid “[0149] In particular embodiments, the animated/realistic rendering may include inserting emotion, non-verbal ticks, filler sounds (e.g., umm . . . , like . . . , etc.), etc. to the responses of the XR assistant avatar. These may be rendered in both audio and visual modalities”).
Regarding claim 15 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches wherein the processor is further configured to render the avatar of the at least one participant using the virtual behavior (Khorshid “[0144]…. The user 1010 may get excited and be cheering. The AR/VR system 130 may detect such behavior and accordingly render the XR assistant avatar 1020 as also being excited and cheerful. Customizing the XR assistant avatar responsive to the change of context may be an effective solution for addressing the technical challenge of determining when to customize the XR assistant avatar as the change of content may provide informative cues useful for determining what customizations may be more suitable, interesting, and engaging for a user”).
Regarding claim 16 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches wherein the at least one participant is using a first augmented reality (AR) device and the avatar is visible on a second AR device (Khorshid Fig. 8 “[0031]….. As an example and not by way of limitation, network environment 100 may include multiple AR/VR systems 130”)
Nair “[0002]…. Multiplayer games such as massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs) create persistent worlds in which users, through avatars or computer-based representations of characters which are controlled by their users, interact with each other and with their environment. [0040] FIG. 4 shows an illustrative block diagram of an extended reality content system according to some embodiments of the disclosure. At least one extended reality content server 400 generates extended reality content, such as that described herein. Extended reality content server 400 transmits the content over internet 410 to multiple end-user devices including devices 420, 425, 430”);
Regarding claim 17 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches wherein the rendering the avatar comprises sending a digital representation of the avatar to a second person meeting with the at least one participant for display on the second AR device (Nair “[0037] FIG. 3 shows an illustrative block diagram of a device 300 in an extended reality system, according to some embodiments of the disclosure. Device 300 in an extended reality system may include one or more servers (e.g., server 102 of FIG. 1) for generating, displaying, and/or managing an extended reality environment, including monitoring behavior of and performing resulting actions on avatars, which is transmitted over a computer network to end-user multi-perspective devices (e.g., devices 104 of FIGS. 1 and 2A-C)”).
Regarding claim 18 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches displaying a message on the first AR device as feedback for the at least one participant to modify a speech or a gesture (Nair “[0032]…… In this example, server 102 marks avatar 200 as an abusive character by changing its color, and applying a text-based “ABUSIVE CHARACTER” banner 204 above avatar 200. [0034] In FIG. 2E, avatar 200 then engages in improper or undesired behavior by getting into a dispute with avatar 202, where disputes may be detected as below, via detected language, audio volume, speech (words indicative of conflict), or the like. [0035]….. That is, server 102 may allot a certain amount of time after a performance score threshold is breached before marking, to allow the breaching avatar to remedy its performance, allow for correction of simple errors, or the like. Similarly, server 102 may alter the performance score threshold, or amount of time after a performance score threshold is breached before marking, for either one or both parties to a dispute, to allow for a cooling off period and give each avatar a chance to recover. [0040]….. These devices may provide, for example, visual, audio, and haptic feedback that present the perspectives and attention-directing cues such as described herein”).
Regarding claim 19 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches generating a second avatar based on the at least one participant modifying their speech or gesture in response to the message (Nair As Nair’s process is a continuous process so avatar gets updated/created every time any changes happen “[0032]……As further described below, server 102 may continue to monitor the behavior of avatars 200, 202, and in some embodiments may remove the markings on avatar 200 upon sufficient subsequent good behavior. [0034] In FIG. 2E, avatar 200 then engages in improper or undesired behavior by getting into a dispute with avatar 202, where disputes may be detected as below, via detected language, audio volume, speech (words indicative of conflict), or the like.”).
Regarding claim 20 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches sending a second digital representation of the second avatar to the second person. (Nair “[0037] FIG. 3 shows an illustrative block diagram of a device 300 in an extended reality system, according to some embodiments of the disclosure. Device 300 in an extended reality system may include one or more servers (e.g., server 102 of FIG. 1) for generating, displaying, and/or managing an extended reality environment, including monitoring behavior of and performing resulting actions on avatars, which is transmitted over a computer network to end-user multi-perspective devices (e.g., devices 104 of FIGS. 1 and 2A-C)”).
Regarding claim 21 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches suppressing a non-compliant action, wherein the suppressing of the non-compliant action comprises identifying a negative visual cue of the at least one participant in a real world as the non-compliant action, and rendering the avatar of the at least one participant in the Metaverse without the negative visual cue (“[0144]….. If the user is angry, the XR assistant avatar may be apologetic. In other words, the XR assistant avatar may not merely mimic the user's emotions or actions, but rather react in a customized way to improve the user's experience. FIG. 10 illustrates an example rendering of the XR assistant avatar responsive to user behavior”).
Claim(s) 4, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorshid modified by Nair and further in view of Bennett et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200357198 “Bennett”).
Regarding claim 4 Khorshid modified by Nair teaches detecting, by the electronic device, at least one real-world user action of the at least one participant; determining, by the electronic device, at least one of a behavioral trait or a behavioral oddity corresponding to the at least one real-world user action (Nair “[0046] A further form of foul play may be drop in performance or refusal to participate after an altercation or other form of conflict. For example, after an argument with another player, an avatar may alter its game play in a negative manner, such as by attempting to attack that player, not healing that player, or the like. More specifically, behavior detection module 502 may detect an altercation or dispute between players in any manner, such as by detecting certain words or phrases within their spoken words, detecting raised volume levels, machine learning-based methods of detecting events such as arguments or the emotional state of participants, or in any other suitable manner. Once an altercation or dispute is detected, the game play of altercation participants is monitored such as via a performance score as above”);
determining, by the electronic device, first behavioral scores corresponding to at least one of the behavioral trait and the behavioral oddity of the at least one participant (“ [0044] Further, performance scores may be based on any actions, and calculated in any desired manner. As one example, frequency of expected actions carried out may be reflected in performance score as above”);
Even though Khorshid modified by Nair teaches retrieving, by the electronic device, the reference behavioral scores for at least one of the behavioral trait and the behavioral oddity based on the at least one Metaverse context (Nair “[0055]…… In some embodiments of the disclosure, behavior scores may be compared to a threshold score value, and marking or other action may be taken after a certain number of breaches”) but is silent about retrieving, by the electronic device from a global behavioral repository, reference behavioral scores;
Bennett teaches retrieving, by an electronic device from a global behavioral repository, reference behavioral scores (“[0059]…… For example, a user's behavior score can be computed by identifying a set of user actions both positive and negative over a fixed period of time, then the actions may be tabulated, summed and compared, as a value to a first threshold (TH1) stored in a first server and any indications that the user has exceeded a level of behavior, such as by meeting or exceeding the threshold, then a value increment or decrement may be performed to update the score”);
Bennett and Khorshid modified by Nair are analogous art as both of them are related to data processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Khorshid modified by Nair by retrieving, by an electronic device from a global behavioral repository, reference behavioral scores as taught by Bennett.
The motivation for the above is to make the threshold reusable.
Khorshid modified by Nair and Bennett teaches generating, by the electronic device, at least one corrective action for the at least one real-world user action by adjusting at least one of the behavioral trait or the behavioral oddity using the reference behavioral scores (Nair “[0055]……. This behavior score 902 may be compared to a threshold value 900 over time. When the score 902 rises above threshold value 900 for greater than some specified period of time, as shown in the left of the upper graph of FIG. 9, the avatar may be marked as being, e.g., an abusive character. This marking may be removed upon subsequent good behavior. Indeed, after marking, the avatar's score 902 falls below the threshold 900. However, the score 902 soon rises above threshold 900 once again, as shown in the center right of the upper graph of FIG. 9. That is, once a breach occurs, server 102 may then monitor to determine whether this breach is persistent, i.e., occurs repeatedly or continuously, with persistent breach indicating continued marking. Here, as breach occurs again within a relatively short period of time, the avatar is considered to be in persistent breach, and its marking is maintained. The period of time used to determine persistent breach may be a fixed or predetermined time period, or may vary depending on any factors. In the example shown, the persistent breach time period may be determined according to factors such as past breach history or weighting of behaviors (with, for example, very good subsequent behavior reducing the persistent breach time period, etc.), as shown”).
Regarding claim 8 Khorshid modified by Nair and Bennett teaches wherein the generating, by the electronic device, of the at least one corrective action comprises determining, by the electronic device, the at least one corrective action based on at least one of a global action repository, delta difference scores, and the first behavioral scores, and wherein the generating the at least one corrective action comprises applying the at least one corrective action on the avatar (Nair “[0055]……. This behavior score 902 may be compared to a threshold value 900 over time. When the score 902 rises above threshold value 900 for greater than some specified period of time, as shown in the left of the upper graph of FIG. 9, the avatar may be marked as being, e.g., an abusive character. This marking may be removed upon subsequent good behavior. Indeed, after marking, the avatar's score 902 falls below the threshold 900. However, the score 902 soon rises above threshold 900 once again, as shown in the center right of the upper graph of FIG. 9. That is, once a breach occurs, server 102 may then monitor to determine whether this breach is persistent, i.e., occurs repeatedly or continuously, with persistent breach indicating continued marking. Here, as breach occurs again within a relatively short period of time, the avatar is considered to be in persistent breach, and its marking is maintained. The period of time used to determine persistent breach may be a fixed or predetermined time period, or may vary depending on any factors. In the example shown, the persistent breach time period may be determined according to factors such as past breach history or weighting of behaviors (with, for example, very good subsequent behavior reducing the persistent breach time period, etc.), as shown”).
Regarding claim 11 Khorshid modified by Nair and Bennett teaches wherein at least one of the behavioral trait or the behavioral oddity indicates a personality of the at least one participant, and wherein the personality comprises at least one of confidence, nervousness, professionalism, amateurism, normalcy, decency, joy, friendliness, and politeness (Khorshid “[0144]….. In FIG. 10, a user 1010 wearing an XR device as the client system 138 may be exploring the VR or real world 1015. The user 1010 may get excited and be cheering”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5 Appel et al. (US Pat. 11025741) wherein the determining of the plurality of modal cues comprises: determining, by the electronic device using at least one modality-specific sensor, low-level modal information associated with the at least one participant; generating, by the electronic device based on the low-level modal information, high-level multi-modal information;
(Col 4 lines 1-25 “For example a user may have set the following preferences for a particular type of query:
(23) Profile_Modality (audio.1)=10
(24) Profile_Modality (audio.2)=5
(25) Profile_Modality (text)=8
(26) Profile_Modality (tactile.1)=5
(27) Profile_Modality (tactile.2)=0
(28) The overall modality selection may in one embodiment be based on a rules engine that considers each of the user profile analysis 22”);
But combination of available prior art fails to expressly teach determining, by the electronic device and based on the high-level multi-modal information, the plurality of modal cues associated with the at least one participant.
Regarding claim 6 Nair teaches determining, by the electronic device, whether the delta difference scores indicate an increment or a decrement is required to achieve the reference behavioral scores; performing, by the electronic device, one of: incrementing the behavioral scores in response to determining that the delta difference scores indicate the increment is required, or decrementing the behavioral scores in response to determining that the delta difference scores indicate the decrement is required (“[0008] Punishments may be for a specified time, or may be reversed or undone when avatars exhibit good or remedial behavior. For example, avatars may be muted, demonetized, forbidden from certain areas of the computer-generated environment, banned, or the like for a specified period of time, whereupon these avatars may be fully reinstated and their punishment removed. When punishment involves marking, such markings may be removed when, for instance, undesired behavior is halted or corrected. Thus, for example, when avatar behavior scores return sufficiently close to baseline values, e.g., when the difference between current and baseline performance scores falls below some predetermined threshold, or falls below such threshold for longer than a predetermined time period, avatar markings may be removed. This provides incentive for users to correct their improper behavior”);
and detecting, by the electronic device based on the a delta difference scores, the at least one non-compliant modal cue (“[0032] As the behavior score of avatar 200 has fallen to 1.3 (e.g., above a threshold difference from historical score 3.2 and thus indicating excessive inappropriate or undesired behavior, where this threshold value may be any suitable value), server 102 performs an action upon avatar 200, to punish avatar 200 and/or reduce any risk to other avatars”);
Appel et al. (US Pat. 11025741) teaches detecting, by the electronic device based on the at least one modal cue score, the at least one non-compliant modal cue (Col 4 lines 1-25 “User profile data 50 may include user preferences for interface modalities for different types of queries 40 or input scenarios. For example, the user may set preferences that cognitive responses 42 involving travel queries should be displayed in an HTML format, cognitive responses 42 involving generic web searches should be broadcast back in an audio format, etc. User profile analysis 22 may consider both preferences set by the user and preferences determined from adaptive learning system 34 (i.e., based on feedback from prior cognitive responses 42). Any algorithm or procedure for analyzing user profile data 50 and further scoring potential interface modalities may be utilized. For example a user may have set the following preferences for a particular type of query:
(23) Profile_Modality (audio.1)=10
(24) Profile_Modality (audio.2)=5
(25) Profile_Modality (text)=8
(26) Profile_Modality (tactile.1)=5
(27) Profile_Modality (tactile.2)=0
(28) The overall modality selection may in one embodiment be based on a rules engine that considers each of the user profile analysis 22”);
However combination of prior art fails to expressly teach “assigning, by the electronic device, at least one modal cue score based on a user defined policy and a modal cue with greatest potential for achieving the reference behavioral scores”;
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20/2026 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered but they are persuasive. Therefore the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20/2026 with respect to rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorshid (US Pat. Pub. No. 20240045704 “Khorshid”) in view of Nair et al. (Us Pat. Pub. No. 20230014321 “Nair”).
Applicant argues see remarks pages 11-12 “Page 5 of the Office Action contends that paragraph [0144] of Khorshid discloses that "the generating the virtual behavior comprises: detecting, by the electronic device, at least one non-compliant modal cue among the plurality of modal cues by comparing…….. For example, paragraph [0144] of Khorshid merely discloses a high-level description of how an "XR assistant avatar" may render different emotional reactions in response to user behavior. However, the "XR assistant avatar" described in paragraph [0144] is fundamentally different from the claimed avatar of the at least one participant in the Metaverse. Moreover, the XR assistant avatar in Khorshid is merely a subject that interacts with the user, and it is not an avatar that represents the user's behavior”.
Examiner wants to note that Khorshid teaches argued limitation. Khorshid paragraph [0144] clearly described argued limitation. According to paragraph [0144] if there is a non-compliant modal cue (in paragraph [0144] it detects anger) then instead of mimicking angry behavior Khorshid replaces angry behavior with apologetic behavior. See “[0144]….. If the user is angry, the XR assistant avatar may be apologetic. In other words, the XR assistant avatar may not merely mimic the user's emotions or actions, but rather react in a customized way to improve the user's experience. FIG. 10 illustrates an example rendering of the XR assistant avatar responsive to user behaviors.
Examiner also wants to note that Khorshid’s XR assistant avatar is an avatar that represents user as according to Khorshid, XR assistant avatar has a form and pose that correspond to user and also the avatar is morphed based on change in the context of the first user, See ABSTRACT “wherein the XR assistant avatar has a first form and a first pose with respect to the first user and is interactable by the first user to access an assistant system, detecting a change in a context of the first user with respect to the environment, determining whether to morph the XR assistant avatar based on the detected change in the context of the first user”.
Applicant argues see remarks page 12 “Furthermore, Khorshid does not disclose or suggest "determining, by the electronic device, delta difference scores between behavioral scores corresponding to the real-world behavior…….Additionally, Nair and Bennet fail to remedy the deficiencies of Khorshid. For example, as described in paragraphs [0005]-[0007] of Nair, the system merely determines whether a user's behavior exceeds or falls below a fixed threshold to decide whether to mark an avatar as a bad actor. Nair does not compute delta difference scores, does not identify non-compliant modal cues, and does not substitute compliant cues for non-compliant cues”.
Examiner wants to note that Khorshid modified by Nair teaches argued limitation. Nair determines delta difference scores between behavioral scores corresponding to real-world behavior and reference behavioral scores associated with at least one Metaverse context, see Nair, “[0008]……..Thus, for example, when avatar behavior scores return sufficiently close to baseline values, e.g., when the difference between current and baseline performance scores falls below some predetermined threshold, or falls below such threshold for longer than a predetermined time period, avatar markings may be removed. This provides incentive for users to correct their improper behavior. “
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights