DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 12/28/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 7, and 16 are independent claims.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, replace …, comprising … with …, the method comprising …
Claim 1, lines 6-7, replace …, applying … rules for a first avatar … with …, applying … rules to a first avatar …
Claim 2, lines 2-3, replace … a likeness of the first avatar … with … a likeness of the first avatar is displayed …
Claim 7, the second limitation, replace … the second avatar is different from the first avatar … with … the second avatar being different from the first avatar …
Claim 11, the limitation before last, replace …, applying … rules for the second avatar … with …, apply … rules to the second avatar …
Claim 11, the limitation before last, replace …, applying … rules for the second avatar … with …, apply … rules to the second avatar …
Claim 16, the limitation before last, replace …, applying … rules for the first avatar … with …, applying … rules to the first avatar …
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Comments
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy, US Patent No. 8,026,918 Bl (hereinafter as Murphy).
Regarding independent claim 1, Murphy discloses a method for virtual reality (VR) communication [see e.g. col. 1, lines 15-16 and fig. 9], the method comprising:
creating, via one or more processors [see the processor in claims 1 and 15], multiple virtual spaces within one or more metaverses [see e.g. figs. 3A and 3B showing multiple virtual spaces in a virtual environment; note also the exemplary virtual space identification in col. 14, lines 36-47];
generating, via the one or more processors, an avatar-specific interface within the one or more metaverses [see the exemplary avatar-specific interfaces shown in figs. 2 and 3A];
generating, via the one or more processors, a list of reachability options [note the reachability options list in fig. 8 as well as fig. 6];
responsive to receiving a selection from the list of reachability options, applying, via the one or more processors, a set of communication rules for a first avatar [note from fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of allowing or blocking of messages from specific groups to a particular user; see also col. 14, line 65-col. 15, line 3]; and
managing, via the one or more processors, connectivity with the first avatar across virtual and real-world environments based upon the selection from the list of reachability options [again, see from fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of allowing or blocking of messages from specific groups to a particular user; see also col. 14, line 65-col. 15, line 3; see also col. 15, lines 23-25 indicating that the option that the settings relate to both a user’s online instant messaging settings as well as a user’s virtual world environment settings].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Murphy further discloses that the set of communication rules defines which avatars block incoming notifications [again, see e.g. fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of blocking messages from specific groups to a particular user/avatar; see also col. 15, lines 13-15].
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Murphy further discloses that the set of communication rules defines a first plurality of users that can contact the first avatar and the set of communication rules defines a second plurality of users that can contact a second avatar [again, see e.g. fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of allowing messages from specific groups to a particular user (avatar); note from fig. 8 that a second avatar can be selected from the participant list 805 and messages from a corresponding group of users may be allowed with respect to this second avatar].
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Selekman et al., US PGPUB 2024/0146880 Al (hereinafter as Selekman).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Murphy further teaches an engageable interface whereby the list of reachability options is selected [note the interface of fig. 8 allowing interactive selections including lists of reachability options].
Murphy, however, does not explicitly teach that the avatar-specific interface comprises at least one of an engageable interface whereby the list of reachability options is selected and a likeness of the first avatar is displayed.
Selekman teaches an avatar-specific interface that comprises at least one of an engageable interface whereby a list of reachability options is selected and a likeness of the first avatar is displayed [see fig. 7 showing reachability options and a display of the likeness of a corresponding avatar in an avatar-specific interface].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Murphy and Selekman before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the avatar-specific interface taught by Murphy by explicitly specifying that the avatar-specific interface comprises at least one of an engageable interface whereby the list of reachability options is selected and a likeness of the first avatar is displayed, as per the teachings of Selekman. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate selecting avatar-specific settings, as suggested by Selekman [see e.g. [0046] and [0043]].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Skuratowicz et al., US PGPUB 2022/0317830 Al (hereinafter as Skuratowicz).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Murphy does not explicitly teach that the set of communication rules designates one or more virtual spaces of the multiple virtual spaces within the one or more metaverses that allow the first avatar to receive incoming notifications.
Skuratowicz teaches designating one or more virtual spaces of multiple virtual spaces within one or more metaverses that allow an avatar to receive incoming notifications [see e.g.[0077] indicating that if a user is not available for communication, he/she is not displayed in the space 506 of fig. 6 which indicates that the avatar being displayed in space 506 means that incoming notifications are allowed; note the communication notification options in [0033]; in contrast separate offices 512-1 through 512-3 may not allow incoming notifications if a door is shut as described in [0073]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Murphy and Skuratowicz before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy’s VR communication method by explicitly specifying that the set of communication rules designates one or more virtual spaces of the multiple virtual spaces within the one or more metaverses that allow the first avatar to receive incoming notifications, as per the teachings of Skuratowicz. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable creating clear visualization and demarcation of scenarios and spaces where incoming notifications are received by an avatar or not, as suggested by Skuratowicz [see again e.g. [0033], [0073], and [0077]].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Lyle et al., US PGPUB 2009/0158150 Al (hereinafter as Lyle).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Murphy further teaches managing connectivity that includes blocking an incoming notification for the first avatar of a first user and allowing the incoming notification for a second avatar of a second user [again, see e.g. fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of blocking or allowing messages from specific groups to a particular user (avatar); note from fig. 8 that a second avatar can be selected from the participant list 805 and messages from a corresponding group of users may be allowed with respect to this second avatar while they are blocked for a first avatar wherein each avatar belongs to a different user].
Murphy, however, does not explicitly teach that managing connectivity with the first avatar includes blocking an incoming notification for the first avatar of a first user and allowing the incoming notification for a second avatar of the first user.
Lyle teaches specifying and maintaining multiple avatar profiles for a single user [see e.g.[0029], [0030], and [0032] indicating having a different profile for each character a user would like to have].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Murphy and Lyle before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy’s teachings of different communication settings for multiple avatars by applying it to multiple avatars belonging to the same user, as those taught by Lyle to reach the claimed limitation. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable creating different profiles for a user wherein each reflects a different character or intended use within the virtual environment, as suggested by Lyle [see e.g. [0032]] which enables associating more specific and specialized reachability options to users.
Claims 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle in view of Murphy.
Regarding independent claim 7, Lyle teaches a virtual reality system [see the system in fig. 1 described in [0020]-[0024]] comprising:
one or more virtual reality (VR) servers configured to create multiple virtual spaces within one or more metaverses [see game server 12; note in [0007] the metaverse application associated with a virtual world; note in [0033] the example of arriving at a virtual “work location” within the virtual world which indicates multiple virtual spaces];
a virtual communication server in communication with the one or more VR servers and configured to communicate with a plurality of user devices [again, see game server 12 and note the communication with client game consoles 14a, 14b, …, 14n];
an avatar library in communication with each of the one or more VR servers and the virtual communication server, wherein the avatar library comprises a plurality of avatars [note in [0026] the database storing user-related data and note it being in communication with server 12], wherein at least one of the one or more VR servers and the virtual communication server is configured to:
receive a first avatar request [note in [0025] that a user can create a “character” (or avatar) after creating an account while in a metaverse indicating a user initiating a request to a server];
generate a first avatar for a first user within the one or more metaverses based upon the first avatar request [note in [0027] generating the avatar profile]; and
assign a first virtual directory number to the first avatar [again, note in [0027] the attribute ID assigned to the created avatar profile which can include a numerical identifier].
Lyle does not explicitly teach:
applying a first set of communication rules for the first avatar; or
managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules.
Murphy teaches:
applying a first set of communication rules for a first avatar; and managing communication notifications for the first avatar within one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules [note from fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of allowing or blocking of messages from specific groups to a particular user; see also col. 14, line 65-col. 15, line 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Lyle and Murphy before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality system taught by Lyle by explicitly specifying applying a first set of communication rules for the first avatar, and managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules, as per the teachings of Murphy. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable selectively enabling or avoiding communication with proximate avatars based on a variety of criteria, as suggested by Murphy [see e.g. col. 1, lines 52-56].
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Lyle further teaches that the first avatar request is received from the first user request [note in [0025] that a user can create a “character” (or avatar) after creating an account while in a metaverse indicating a user initiating a request to a server].
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Lyle further teaches that the first avatar request is generated in response to the first user entering a first metaverse of the one or more metaverses [again, see e.g. in [0025] that a user can create a “character” (or avatar) after creating an account while in a metaverse indicating a user entering a certain metaverse like creating an account for participating in a certain game].
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Lyle further teaches that the at least one of the one or more VR servers and the virtual communication server is further configured to:
receive a second avatar request [again, note in [0025] that a user can create a “character” (or avatar) after creating an account while in a metaverse indicating a user initiating a request to a server; note from [0032] that a user can create a number of different avatar profiles while in a metaverse];
generate a second avatar for the first user within the one or more metaverses based upon the second avatar request, the second avatar being different from the first avatar [note in [0027] generating the avatar profile; again, note from [0032] that a user can create a number of different avatar profiles while in a metaverse]; and
assign a second virtual directory number to the second avatar [again, note in [0027] the attribute ID assigned to the created avatar profile which can include a numerical identifier].
Again, Murphy further teaches:
applying a second set of communication rules for a second avatar; and managing communication notifications for the second avatar within one or more metaverses based on the second set of communication rules [note from fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of allowing or blocking of messages from specific groups to a particular user; see also col. 14, line 65-col. 15, line 3; note from fig. 8 that a second avatar can be selected from the participant list 805 and messages from a corresponding group of users may be allowed with respect to this second avatar].
See the rejection of claim 7 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Lyle further teaches that the second virtual directory number is different from the first virtual directory number [again, note in [0027] the attribute ID assigned to each created avatar profile which can include a numerical identifier thus having distinct and unique profile identifiers for each avatar being created].
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The previously combined art further teaches that the first set of communication rules is associated with a first virtual space within the one or more metaverses and the second set of communication rules is associated with a second virtual space within the one or more metaverses [note in [0033] of Lyle the switching from a first avatar to a second avatar based on a change in location of the character in the virtual environment thus associating the first set of communication rules (which has been associated with the first avatar based on Murphy’s teachings) with the first location/virtual space and associating the second set of communication rules (which has been associated with the second avatar based on Murphy’s teachings) with the second location/virtual space]. See the rejection of claim 7 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated.
Lyle further teaches specifying and maintaining multiple avatar profiles for a single user [see e.g.[0029], [0030], and [0032] indicating having a different profile for each character a user would like to have].
Murphy further teaches managing connectivity that includes blocking an incoming notification for the first avatar and allowing the incoming notification for a second avatar [again, see e.g. fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of blocking or allowing messages from specific groups to a particular user (avatar); note from fig. 8 that a second avatar can be selected from the participant list 805 and messages from a corresponding group of users may be allowed with respect to this second avatar while they are blocked for a first avatar].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Lyle and Murphy before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality system taught by Lyle by explicitly specifying that managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules includes blocking an incoming notification for the first avatar of the first user and allowing the incoming notification for a second avatar of the first user, as per the teachings of Murphy (applied to different first and second avatars belonging to the first user in Lyle’s virtual environment). The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable selectively enabling or avoiding communication with proximate avatars based on a variety of criteria, as suggested by Murphy [see e.g. col. 1, lines 52-56] thus enabling different communication rules based on the “character” used by the user in Lyle’s environment.
Regarding independent claim 16, Lyle teaches a method for interaction [see e.g. [0007]] within one or more metaverses, wherein the one or more metaverses includes multiple virtual spaces, wherein each of the multiple virtual spaces is configured to permit a plurality of avatars to simultaneously interact with each other inside of at least one of the multiple virtual spaces [see the interaction of a plurality of avatars within the metaverse; note in [0033] the example of arriving at a virtual “work location” within the virtual world which indicates multiple virtual spaces], the method comprising steps of:
using at least one of one or more virtual reality (VR) servers, a virtual communication server, or one or more user operating devices, to create the multiple virtual spaces within the one or more metaverses [see game server 12 in fig. 1; note in [0007] the metaverse application associated with a virtual world; note in [0033] the example of arriving at a virtual “work location” within the virtual world which indicates multiple virtual spaces];
receiving a first avatar request [note in [0025] that a user can create a “character” (or avatar) after creating an account while in a metaverse indicating a user initiating a request to a server];
generating a first avatar for a first user within the one or more metaverses based upon the first avatar request [note in [0027] generating the avatar profile]; and
assigning a first virtual directory number to the first avatar [again, note in [0027] the attribute ID assigned to the created avatar profile which can include a numerical identifier].
Lyle does not explicitly teach screening a communication within the one or more metaverses. Neither does it teach:
applying a first set of communication rules for the first avatar; or
managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules.
Murphy teaches screening a communication [see e.g. col. 1, lines 15-16 and fig. 9] within one or more metaverses [[see e.g. figs. 3A and 3B showing a virtual environment] comprising:
applying a first set of communication rules for a first avatar; and managing communication notifications for the first avatar within one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules [note from fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of allowing or blocking of messages from specific groups to a particular user; see also col. 14, line 65-col. 15, line 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Lyle and Murphy before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interaction method taught by Lyle by explicitly specifying applying a first set of communication rules for the first avatar, and managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules, as per the teachings of Murphy. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable selectively enabling or avoiding communication with proximate avatars based on a variety of criteria, as suggested by Murphy [see e.g. col. 1, lines 52-56].
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Murphy further teaches that the first set of communication rules defines a plurality of avatars from which to block incoming notifications [again, see e.g. fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of blocking messages from specific groups to a particular avatar; see also col. 15, lines 13-15]. See the rejection of claim 16 for motivations to combine the cited art.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated.
The combined art further teaches the step of blocking an incoming communication from a second user in response to at least one of: (i) the first avatar being located in a first virtual space; or (ii) the first user operating as the first avatar [again, see in Murphy e.g. fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of blocking messages from a certain user to a particular avatar; Murphy further teaches an option of blocking communication from avatars within a certain range of the first avatar (see option 810b in fig. 8); see in Lyle specifying and maintaining multiple avatar profiles for a single user (see e.g.[0029], [0030], and [0032] indicating having a different profile for each character a user would like to have)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Lyle and Murphy before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for virtual interaction taught by Lyle by explicitly specifying blocking an incoming communication from a second user in response to at least one of: (i) the first avatar being located in a first virtual space; or (ii) the first user operating as the first avatar, as per the combined teachings of Murphy and Lyle (by applying Murphy’s communication rules to the first avatar belonging to the first user when the user is operating as the first avatar, as taught by Lyle). The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable selectively enabling or avoiding communication with proximate avatars based on a variety of criteria, as suggested by Murphy [see e.g. col. 1, lines 52-56] thus enabling different communication rules based on the “character” used by the user in Lyle’s environment.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. The combined art further teaches the step of displaying the incoming communication from the second user in response to at least one of: (i) the first avatar being located in a second virtual space; or (ii) the first user operating as a second avatar [again, see in Murphy e.g. from fig. 8 and col. 14, lines 5-11 the option of allowing messages from a certain user to a particular avatar; see also col. 14, line 65-col. 15, line 3; note also displaying incoming messages as described in col. 4, lines 62-63; Murphy further teaches an option of allowing communication from avatars/users within a certain range of the first avatar (see option 810a in fig. 8); see in Lyle specifying and maintaining multiple avatar profiles for a single user (see e.g.[0029], [0030], and [0032] indicating having a different profile for each character a user would like to have thus enabling the first user to operate as a second avatar)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Lyle and Murphy before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for virtual interaction taught by Lyle by explicitly specifying displaying the incoming communication from the second user in response to at least one of: (i) the first avatar being located in a second virtual space; or (ii) the first user operating as a second avatar, as per the combined teachings of Murphy and Lyle (by applying Murphy’s communication rules to a second avatar belonging to the first user when the user is operating as the second avatar, as taught by Lyle). The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable selectively enabling or avoiding communication with proximate avatars based on a variety of criteria, as suggested by Murphy [see e.g. col. 1, lines 52-56] thus enabling different communication rules based on the “character” used by the user in Lyle’s environment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle in view of Murphy, and further in view of Liu et al., US PGPUB 2010/0115426 A1 (hereinafter as Liu).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach that managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules includes blocking a second user within the one or more metaverses from viewing a communication between the first user and a third user.
Liu teaches managing communication notifications for an avatar within one or more metaverses based on a set of communication rules that includes blocking a second user within the one or more metaverses from viewing a communication between a first and a third user [note in [0085] that a current user is unable to read transpiring communications between other members].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Liu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first set of communication rules applied to the first avatar in the first virtual space, as taught by the combined teachings of Lyle and Murphy by explicitly specifying that managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules includes blocking a second user within the one or more metaverses from viewing a communication between the first user and a third user, as per the teachings of Liu. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable setting privacy constraints among avatars, as suggested by Liu [see e.g. [0085]].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle in view of Murphy, and further in view of Tilton et al., US Patent No. 10,722,800 B2 (hereinafter as Tilton).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Lyle further teaches that the first virtual directory number is associated with a first virtual space within the one or more metaverses [again, note in [0033] of Lyle the switching to a certain avatar based on a change in location of the character in the virtual environment thus associating the first virtual directory number (which has been associated with that avatar) with the first location/virtual space within the one or more metaverses].
The previously combined art, however, does not explicitly teach that managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules includes blocking an incoming notification when the first avatar is outside of the first virtual space.
Tilton teaches managing communication notifications for an avatar within one or more metaverses based on a set of communication rules that includes blocking an incoming notification when the avatar is outside of a certain assigned virtual space [note in col. 17, lines 25-26 and 38-47 the entrance of an avatar into a restricted space (i.e. exiting an certain assigned virtual space) and the disabling of communication with other avatars in that restricted space].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Tilton before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first set of communication rules applied to the first avatar in the first virtual space, as taught by the combined teachings of Lyle and Murphy by explicitly specifying that managing communication notifications for the first avatar within the one or more metaverses based on the first set of communication rules includes blocking an incoming notification when the first avatar is outside of the first virtual space, as per the teachings of Tilton. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable selectively allowing or restricting communication based on clearly identified space association with the avatar, as suggested by the scenario taught by Tilton [see e.g. col. 17, lines 25-26 and 38-47].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle in view of Murphy, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Skuratowicz.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated.
Murphy does not explicitly teach that the first set of communication rules designates one or more virtual spaces of the multiple virtual spaces within the one or more metaverses that allow the first avatar to receive incoming notifications.
Skuratowicz teaches designating one or more virtual spaces of multiple virtual spaces within one or more metaverses that allow an avatar to receive incoming notifications [see e.g.[0077] indicating that if a user is not available for communication, he/she is not displayed in the space 506 of fig. 6 which indicates that the avatar being displayed in space 506 means that incoming notifications are allowed; note the communication notification options in [0033]; in contrast separate offices 512-1 through 512-3 may not allow incoming notifications if a door is shut as described in [0073]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Skuratowicz before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first set of communication rules applied to the first avatar in the first virtual space, as taught by the combined teachings of Lyle and Murphy by explicitly specifying that the first set of communication rules designates one or more virtual spaces of the multiple virtual spaces within the one or more metaverses that allow the first avatar to receive incoming notifications, as per the teachings of Skuratowicz. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable creating clear visualization and demarcation of scenarios and spaces where incoming notifications are received by an avatar or not, as suggested by Skuratowicz [see again e.g. [0033], [0073], and [0077]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes from the cited art, Richard et al., US Patent No. 8,326,853 B2, which teaches switching an avatar for the same user based on entering a certain location in the virtual environment [fig. 7].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights