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 .
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4/21/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 17 have been amended. Claims 3, 10, 16 are cancelled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims (1,6), 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 of app 18/184,859 (now is US patent US 11875471 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same subject matters and limitations as explained below.
Claims 1,6 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 1 of 18/184,859 (now is US patent US 11875471 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claims 1, 6
18/184,859 claim 1
1. A system for controlling an interactive virtual environment comprising a computing device for: generating a three-dimensional computer-generated environment including a player controllable character within the three-dimensional computer-generated environment; displaying a portal within a portion of the three-dimensional computer-generated environment, the portal active to enable the player controllable character to transition to a new interactive experience; and displaying information
1. A system for controlling an interactive virtual environment comprising a computing device for: generating a three-dimensional computer-generated environment including a player controllable character within the three-dimensional computer-generated environment; displaying linear content on a virtual display within the three-dimensional computer-generated environment, the linear content associated with at least one interactive experience,
as a popup element near the portal as the portal is approached by a
player controllable character, the information
related to the new interactive experience in proximity to the portal and visible to the player controllable character.
the interactive experience having a location, theme, world, activity, or a character displayed on the virtual display, wherein the linear content lacks interactivity for the viewer;
6. The system of claim 1 wherein the computing device is further for:
generating the new interactive experience into which the player controllable character could transition;
displaying the new interactive experience on the portal within the three-dimensional computer generated environment, such that the new interactive experience is visible to the player controllable character;
receiving input controlling the player controllable character to move the player
controllable character into close proximity to the portal;
and transitioning the player controllable character to a second three-dimensional computer generated environment embodying the new interactive experience.
receiving input controlling the player controllable character to move the player controllable character into close proximity to the linear content displayed on the virtual display,
wherein the input includes the player controllable character one of walking into the linear content displayed, walking through the linear content displayed, jumping into the linear content displayed or jumping through the linear content displayed, and wherein the receiving the input excludes the player controllable character using a device or equipment of the player controllable character;
generating a second three-dimensional computer-generated environment, the second three-dimensional environment incorporating the location, theme, world, activity, or character of the interactive experience associated with the linear content;
and transitioning the player controllable character to the second three-dimensional computer-generated environment including the at least one interactive experience associated with the linear content and incorporating the location, theme, world, activity, or character associated with the linear content.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, Claim 1 of the instant application (as amended) discloses: "a computing device for generating a three-dimensional computer-generated environment including a player controllable character within the three-dimensional computer-generated environment" "displaying a portal within a portion of the three-dimensional computer-generated environment, the portal active to enable the player controllable character to transition to a new interactive experience" "displaying information as a popup element near the portal as the portal is approached by a player controllable character, the information related to the new interactive experience in proximity to the portal and visible to the player controllable character". While Claim 1 of US 11,875,471 B2 discloses "a computing device for generating a three-dimensional computer-generated environment including a player controllable character within the three-dimensional computer-generated environment" and "displaying linear content on a virtual display within the three-dimensional computer-generated environment, the linear content associated with at least one interactive experience" — it is not identical to amended Claim 1 of the instant application as it does not recite a portal, a popup element, or information displayed near the portal. However, Claim 1 of US 11,875,471 B2 further discloses "receiving input controlling the player controllable character to move the player controllable character into close proximity to the linear content displayed on the virtual display" (read on: portal approached by a player controllable character), and "the interactive experience having a location, theme, world, activity, or a character displayed on the virtual display" (read on: information related to the new interactive experience visible to the player controllable character). Additionally, Claim 6 of the instant application discloses "generating the new interactive experience into which the player controllable character could transition," "displaying the new interactive experience on the portal within the three-dimensional computer-generated environment, such that the new interactive experience is visible to the player controllable character," "receiving input controlling the player controllable character to move the player controllable character into close proximity to the portal," and "transitioning the player controllable character to a second three-dimensional computer-generated environment embodying the new interactive experience.". While Claim 1 of US 11,875,471 B2 discloses "generating a second three-dimensional computer-generated environment, the second three-dimensional environment incorporating the location, theme, world, activity, or character of the interactive experience associated with the linear content" (read on: generating the new interactive experience into which the player controllable character could transition / transitioning the player controllable character to a second three-dimensional computer-generated environment embodying the new interactive experience), "receiving input controlling the player controllable character to move the player controllable character into close proximity to the linear content displayed on the virtual display" (read on: receiving input controlling the player controllable character to move the player controllable character into close proximity to the portal), and "the linear content associated with at least one interactive experience, the interactive experience having a location, theme, world, activity, or a character displayed on the virtual display". it is not identical to Claim 6 of the instant application. Therefore, Claim 1 of US 11,875,471 B2 discloses all limitations of amended Claims 1 and 6 of the instant application when considered together. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) may be used to overcome this rejection.
Claim 5 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 5 of 18/184,859 (now is US patent US 11875471 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claims 5
18/184,859 claim 5
5. The system of claim 1 wherein within the portal is linear content comprising a selected one of a film, movie, television program, television series, trailer for other content, or short.
5. The system of claim 1 wherein the linear content is a film, movie, television program, television series, trailer for other content, or short.
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, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuster (US 20080134056 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 20190005717 A1, hereinafter Singh) and further in view of Lutnick et al. (US 20210264736 A1, hereinafter Lutnick).
Regarding Claim 1, Shuster teaches a system for controlling an interactive virtual environment comprising a computing device for (Shuster, Paragraph [0024], “a system 100 for providing a VRU to multiple users” [0005], this type are sometimes referred to as "virtual reality" or "virtual reality universe" (VRU)” “Various simulation … in which a 3-D physical world (actual or fantasy) is simulated”);
generating a three-dimensional computer-generated environment including a player controllable character within the three-dimensional computer-generated environment (Shuster, Abstract, Paragraph [0005]-[0006], “A multi-user process receives input from multiple remote clients to manipulate avatars <read on player controllable character> through a virtual environment modeled in a host memory” “Each player selects an "avatar," often a three-dimensional figure of a man, woman, or other being, to represent them in the VRU environment”) ;
displaying a portal within a portion of the three-dimensional computer-generated environment (Shuster, Paragraph [0009], entering some sort of portal or gateway or other transportation point ( or by clicking on a link) to be teleported from one environment or area to another environment or area” “The transportation portal may look like a door, a passageway, a wormhole or any of innumerable appearances” [0006], “The VRU may take the form of at least one area or environment which is a virtual-reality three-dimensional map”),
[[ the portal active to enable the player controllable character to transition to a new interactive experience ]]
displaying information as a popup element [[ near the portal ]] as the portal is approached by a player controllable character (Shuster, Paragraph [0012], “When the user's avatar approaches the portal, the VRU engine queries the database with the user ID to obtain the coordinates of the destination location…the avatar enters the portal” [0028], “The player interface module may also receive game data from portal 220 and process the data for display on display”).
But Shuster does not explicitly disclose the portal active to enable the player controllable character to transition to a new interactive experience…[[ displaying information as a popup element ]] near the portal [[ as the portal is approached by a player controllable character, the information ]] related to the new interactive experience in proximity to the portal and visible to the player controllable character.
However, Singh teaches the portal active to enable the player controllable character to transition to a new interactive experience (Singh, Paragraph [0004], “generating a portal in the first VR immersive space…virtually placing a user in the second VR immersive space when the portal is selected by the user);
and displaying information [[ as a popup element near the portal as the portal is approached by a player controllable character, the information ]] related to the new interactive experience in proximity to the portal and visible to the player controllable character (Singh, Paragraph [0004], “providing a preview of the second VR immersive space on a surface of the portal located in the first VR immersive space” [0010], “providing the preview … comprises displaying at least a portion of the second website <read on information> on at least portion of the surface of the portal).
Singh and Shuster are analogous since both of them are dealing with addressing virtual environments with portals enabling a user/avatar to move between spaces. Shuster provided a way of modeling a shared 3D VR universe with avatars and portals that transport avatars between environments. Singh provided a way of showing a preview of the destination on surface of the portal by displaying information about upcoming experiences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate portal surface preview taught by Singh into modified invention off Shuster such that information related to the new interactive experience is displayed in proximity to the portal and visible to the avatar. The motivation is to organize portals and simplify ability to navigate in a VRU.
But the combination does not explicitly disclose [[ display information as popup element ]] near the portal.
However, Lutnick teaches displayed as a popup element near the portal as the portal is approached by a player controllable character (Lutnick, Paragraph [0158], “pop-up window or other separate window may then appear to allow the player to view more detailed information” [0787], “data may be displayed at a particular location if the data has been gathered in the vicinity, such as at nearby gaming devices or table games” [0790], “An alert may take the form of a message transmitted to a secondary player. For example, a text message may pop up on the screen”).
Lutnick and Shuster are analogous since both of them are dealing with interactive gaming environments in which a system tracks a player's position and proximity to game elements and presents contextually relevant information through a graphical user interface. Shuster provided a way that is foundational architecture: a 3D VRU with an avatar, a portal that is approached by the avatar, and a query of portal-associated data triggered by the avatar's proximity to the porta. Lutnick provided a way of using the specific UI technique: presenting that proximity-triggered information as a popup element near the relevant on-screen object or location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the popup display technique taught by Lutnick into the VRU portal system of Shuster as modified by Singh, such that when a player's avatar approaches a portal, the information related to the new interactive experience is displayed as a popup element near the portal and visible to the player controllable character. The motivation to do so is straightforward: presenting destination information in a popup near the portal improves user experience and portal navigation by giving players contextually relevant, proximity-triggered previews without cluttering the persistent 3D environment which is a well-recognized UI design principle that explicitly discussed by Lutnick in Paragraph [0158];
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Shuster, Singh and Lutnick teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the information is displayed within the portal as the portal is approached by a player controllable character (Shuster, Paragraph [0012], “When the user's avatar approaches the portal, the VRU engine queries the database with the user ID … When the avatar enters the portal, the engine serves the VRU environment existing at the defined location” [0047], “the VRU engine may receive or generate a signal indicating that a player has entered a portal, or is about to enter a portal”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Shuster, Singh and Lutnick teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the computing device is further for:
generating new interactive experience into which the player controllable character could transition (Shuster, Paragraph [0044], “After a user passes through a portal, the VRU system uses the map of the expanded space to generate the user environment” seamless transitions may be made between expanded and non-expanded areas”);
[[ displaying the new interactive experience on the portal within the three-dimensional-computer generated environment, such that the new interactive experience is visible to the player controllable character; ]] receiving input controlling the player controllable character to move the player controllable character into close proximity to the portal (Shuster, Paragraph [0005], “Players send inputs to a VRU engine to move their avatars around the VRU environment” [0009], “maneuvering of one's avatar into the portal, or otherwise actuating the portal … will transport one's avatar to a different environment or area”); and transitioning the player controllable character to a second three-dimensional computer-generated environment embodying the new interactive experience (Shuster, Paragraph [0012], “When the avatar enters the portal, the engine serves the VRU environment existing at the defined location”).
Although Shuster does not explicitly disclose displaying the new interactive experience on the portal within the three-dimensional-computer generated environment, such that the new interactive experience is visible to the player controllable character.
However, Singh teaches generating new interactive experience into which the player controllable character could transition (Singh, Paragraph [0004], “rendering the second VR immersive space”) displaying the new interactive experience on the portal within the three-dimensional-computer generated environment, such that the new interactive experience is visible to the player controllable character (Singh, Paragraph [0004], “providing a preview of the second VR immersive space on a surface of the portal located in the first VR immersive space”) and transitioning the player controllable character to a second three-dimensional computer-generated environment embodying the new interactive experience (Singh, Paragraph [0004], “virtually placing a user in the second VR immersive space when the portal is selected by the user”).
Singh and Shuster are analogous since both of them are dealing with addressing virtual environments with portals enabling a user/avatar to move between spaces. Shuster provided a way of modeling a moving avatars via portals based on input and handling approach/entry. Singh provided a way of rendering second VR immersive space and provide preview. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate portal-surface preview and placement taught by Singh into modified invention off Shuster such that the rendering experience shown on avatar in second space upon selection will be seen on preview window before the placement which increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 1 but as a method and the combination of Shuster, Singh and Lutnick teaches all the limitations as of Claim 1. Therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 2 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 6 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of claim 1 and the combination of Shuster, Singh and Lutnick teaches all the limitations as of Claim 1. And Shuster discloses these features can be implemented on a computer readable storage medium (Shuster, Paragraph [0024], “Referring to FIG. 1, a system 100 for providing a VRU to multiple users may comprise a plurality of client sites, nodes or terminals, for example a personal computer 104, portable computers 106, 110…communicating via a WAN 102 to one or more servers 114. Servers 114 store and serve game data and software to the client sites. Software or firmware may also be located at each client site, configured to work cooperatively with software or firmware operating on servers 114; [0047], “The system includes customization data for various portals in the VRU and instructions for operating in response to such data”).
Regarding Claim 18, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 6 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Shuster, Singh and Lutnick teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches further comprising: the processor; and a memory, wherein the processor and the memory comprise circuits and software for performing the instructions on the storage medium (Shuster, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0024], “FIG. 1, a system 100 or providing a VRU to multiple users may comprise … for example a personal computer 104, portable computers 106, 110 … Servers 114 store and serve game data and software to the client sites. … configured to work cooperatively with software or firmware operating on servers; it is noted the personal computer has processor, memory).
Claim(s) 4, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuster (US 20080134056 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 20190005717 A1, hereinafter Singh) and further in view of Lutnick et al. (US 20210264736 A1, hereinafter Lutnick) as applied to Claim 1, 8, 15 above respectively and further in view of Borra et al. (US 20110219084 A1, hereinafter Borra).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Shuster, Singh and Lutnick teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the computing device is further for: obtaining player controllable character settings associated with parameters of interactive environments into which the player controllable character has previously indicated [[ an unwillingness to visit ]] (Shuster, Paragraph [0012], "Each user may be provided with the option to customize operation of a doorway or other portal. User-defined specifications for operation of a portal are stored in a database in association with a user ID"; Paragraph [0051], "The other condition may be specified by the user operating the avatar <read on player controllable character > when configuring the portal”; Paragraph [0038], "the system may be configured to permit the user to customize the destination of portals such that one portal may serve more than one destination depending on user defined parameters including but not limited to… prior actions of the user, or the prior location or locations of the user in the VRU") ;
detecting the presence of the player controllable character within a threshold associated with transition of the player controllable character into the new interactive experience (Shuster, Paragraph [0047], "the VRU engine may receive or generate a signal indicating that a player has entered a portal, or is about to enter a portal… such a signal will be generated when some portion of an avatar's surface has broken a portal plane, the avatar coordinates pass through a defined plane or space" [0051], “the VRU engine may determine whether the destination is subject to other conditions” “if another condition applies, then the avatar is delivered to a second custom destination”);
comparing the player controllable character settings with parameters related to the new interactive experience (Shuster, Paragraph [0051], “VRU engine may determine whether the destination is subject to other conditions, for example a code specified by the user, a time preference, a frequency-of-use preference, or other condition. The other condition may be specified by the user…when configuring the portal” [0049], “the VRU engine may determine whether a custom destination has been defined for the portal and avatar in question” [0050], “If no custom destination is defined, the avatar is caused to enter a default destination for the portal,” “if a custom destination environment is defined for the avatar and portal, the avatar is caused to enter the custom destination environment [0051], “If no other conditions apply, the avatar is delivered to a first custom destination … if another condition applies, then the avatar is delivered to a second custom destination”);
[[ denying entry ]] of the player controllable character into the new interactive experience when the player controllable character settings indicate that the player controllable character is [[ unwilling ]] to visit the new interactive experience with those parameters (Shuster, Paragraph [0050], “If no custom destination is defined, the avatar is caused to enter a default destination… if a custom destination… is defined. the avatar is caused to enter the custom destination environment”)
The combination does not explicitly denying entry…when the settings indicate unwillingness.
Although Shuster does not explicitly disclose but Borra teaches denying entry [[ of the player controllable character into the new interactive experience ]] when the [[ player controllable character ]] settings indicate that the [[ player controllable character ]] user is unwilling [[ to visit the new interactive experience with those parameters ]] (Borra, Paragraph [0007], "An agent can be required to authorize access to restricted content that a user can request to view. By requiring an agent to authorize what can be viewed by the user, the technology can be used to prevent the user from accessing <read on denying entry> inappropriate materials; Paragraph 0074, "If the user settings do not allow for the attempted change, a permission message 821 can be transmitted").
Borra and Shuster are analogous since both are directed to multi-user virtual and online environments in which a system enforces stored user-associated access rules or preferences at transition or entry points to restrict where a user or avatar may proceed. Shuster provided a way of storing user-defined portal conditions per user ID, detecting avatar proximity to a portal, and conditionally routing the avatar to different destinations based on those stored conditions. Borra provided a way of checking stored access settings at the point of an attempted transition into a virtual environment or content and affirmatively denying entry when those settings do not permit access, thereby preventing the user from entering a restricted space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the access-denial mechanism taught by Borra into the modified invention of Shuster such that when the user's own pre-configured portal settings indicate an unwillingness to enter a particular interactive experience, the system affirmatively denies entry of the player controllable character into that new interactive experience rather than merely redirecting to an alternate destination. The motivation is to enforce user-preset preferences by preventing unintended or accidental portal traversal into environments the user has configured to avoid, thereby improving the reliability and safety of portal navigation.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 4 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 4 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuster (US 20080134056 A1) in view of Singh et al. (US 20190005717 A1, hereinafter Singh) and further in view of Lutnick et al. (US 20210264736 A1, hereinafter Lutnick) as applied to Claim 1, 8, 15 above respectively and further in view of Allen (US 20080307473 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Shuster, Singh and Lutnick teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Allen teaches wherein within the portal is linear content comprising a selected one of a film, movie, television program, television series, trailer for other content, or short (Allen, Paragraph [0008], “introduced into virtual worlds wherein the video is shown on screens within the virtual world” [0019], “an avatar … watching viewable content on a virtual viewing device … other avatars … can also simultaneously view … the same viewable content” [0012], “providing viewable content on a pay per view basis within the virtual world… wherein the viewable content is viewable visually and audibly… avatars are within a predetermined area” [0023], “use the interface 230 to view and select what media ( e.g., movies, television programming, sporting events, concerts, etc.)”).
Allen and Shuster are analogous since both of them are dealing with experiences presented inside a shared virtual world. Shuster provided a way of presenting/approaching a door/passageway that transports avatars between areas. Allen provided a way of showing viewable contents like movies, television shows on a virtual viewing devices in virtual world. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the virtual viewing content from different media format taught by Allen into modified invention off Shuster such that when watching the content in the virtual world, system will be able to provide various media content which improving the discovery and context for the viewing experience.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Shuster, Singh and Lutnick teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the information is a selected one of the following: an environmental characteristic of the new interactive experience, the environmental characteristic comprising at least a selected one of: group of: [[ a temperature level of the interactive experience, a hazard type,]] a number of players or player characters involved in the interactive experience (Shuster, Paragraph [0006], “The VRU is shared by multiple participants, using elements from the common memory” [0052], “FIG. 7 shows an exemplary common scene 700 containing multiple avatars, e.g., avatars 702, 704. Each avatar is controlled by a different player”), [[a danger level of non-player characters within the interactive experience,]] an estimated or actual time required to complete the interactive experience (Shuster, Paragraph [0051], “the VRU engine may determine whether the destination is subject to other conditions, for example a code…a time preference, a frequency-of-use preference, or other condition”), or a name, username or other identification for an operator or creator of the interactive experience (Shuster, Paragraph [0012], “User-defined specifications for operation of a portal are stored in a database in association with a user ID….the VRU engine queries the database with the user ID”); [[ a recommended or minimum level or power of the player controllable character to engage in the new interactive experience; an interaction type of the new interactive experience, the interaction type comprising at least a selected one of: a player-versus-player area, a player-versus-environment area, an area in which player avatars may congregate to chat or engage in trade, an area for taking part in a musical concert or audiovisual experience, a racing game, a simulation game, a first- or third-person character experience, a strategy game, or a role-playing game; or a particular characteristic, item, completion, quest, or requirement to access or safely interact with the interactive experience ]] (Shuster, Paragraph [0012], “User-defined specifications for operation of a portal are stored in a database in association with a user ID … When the user's avatar approaches the portal, the VRU engine queries the database with the user ID” [0049], “the VRU may maintain an index of custom destinations, organized by avatar and portal ID”)
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Allen teaches an interaction type of the new interactive experience, the interaction type comprising at least a selected one of:… an area for taking part in a musical concert or audiovisual experience, (Allen, Paragraph [0008], “Streaming video support has been recently introduced into virtual worlds wherein the video is shown on screens within the virtual world” [0018], “watching viewable content on a virtual viewing device … other avatars … can also simultaneously view .. the same viewable content; [0023], “user can .. view and select what media ( e.g., movies, television programming, sporting events, concerts, etc.”); it is noted avatars can attend/view together concerts which is audiovisual experience).
Allen and Shuster are analogous since both of them are dealing with experiences presented inside a shared virtual world and viewing by avatars. Shuster provided a way of associating destination/portal data with users/avatars and checking it at portal approach/entry. Allen provided a way of offering an in-world audiovisual activity to be shared among different avatars simultaneously. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate identification of the destination type as in-world audiovisual experience taught by Allen into modified invention off Shuster such that the portal-associated information presented is an audiovisual experiences which will easily guide user the destination selection by indicating the nature of the experience which is more user accessible and user friendly environment.
Regarding Claim 12, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 5 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 7 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 7 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of Claims (1,6), 5 under Nonstatutory Double Patenting, although applicant mentioned in remarks filed on 4/21/2026 that a terminal disclaimer has been filed, at the time of issuing this office action, there is no record of terminal disclaimer on file. Therefore, the rejection under Nonstatutory Double Patenting sustained. It will be withdraw once the eTerminal/Terminal Disclaimer filed and approved.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 8, 15, filed on 4/21/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 103 but is not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, 8, 15, applicant asserts that prior art combination does not teach the limitation “displaying information as a popup element near the portal as the portal is approached by a player controllable character, the information related to the new interactive experience in proximity to the portal and visible to the player controllable character”.
In response to the argument, first, the relevant inquiry under § 103 is not whether Lutnick itself discloses a 3D VR environment with a portal, as a matter of fact, Shuster provides portion of the limitation by showing displaying information as a popup element as the portal is approached by a player controllable character in Paragraph [0012], [0028]. And then, Lutnick's role in the combination is limited and discrete: to supply the specific popup UI technique (a popup window appearing near an on-screen element when a player/user focuses on or approaches it) that Shuster's portal system lacks. It is well-established that a reference need not be directed to the same context as the claim to be combinable; it need only teach the specific missing limitation. Lutnick unambiguously teaches proximity or interaction-triggered popup windows that present detailed information about a location or entity in the player's vicinity in Paragraph [0158], [0787] and [0790]. That popup concept is readily transferable to Shuster's portal system without any modification of Shuster's 3D VR architecture.
Applicant further assert that Lutnick's popup as limited to a "floor plan view" and triggered by a mouse hover, not by a player character approaching a portal.
In response to the argument, Lutnick teaches in Paragraph [0158] that a pop-up window "may then appear to allow the player to view more detailed information" which describes a general UI behavior of revealing contextual details about a proximate element, with no inherent restriction to floor-plan views. The floor plan of FIG. 11 is one embodiment of Lutnick's extensive disclosure, which spans hundreds of paragraphs and multiple display configurations. Paragraphs [0787] and [0790] further confirm that the popup/alert mechanism applies broadly to game location proximity and player movement through the casino environment, not exclusively to FIG. 11. The analogous mapping to Shuster's avatar-approaching-a-portal trigger is a straightforward, common-sense combination. Hence the combination of prior arts fully anticipate the limitations. Therefore, applicant remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In regard to Claim 4, applicant asserts that prior art combination does not teaches the limitation "denying entry of the player controllable character into the new interactive experience when the player controllable character settings indicate that the player controllable character is unwilling to visit the new interactive experience with those parameters"
In response to the argument, First, the "set by a user of the player controllable character" limitation is fully and independently taught by Shuster, not Borra. Borra was not relied upon, and is not relied upon here, for this element. Shuster expressly and repeatedly discloses that the portal behavioral parameters are set by the user/player themselves: "Each user may be provided with the option to customize operation of a doorway or other portal. User-defined specifications for operation of a portal are stored in a database in association with a user ID" in Paragraph [0012]; "The other condition may be specified by the user when configuring the portal" in Paragraph [0051]; "user defined parameters" that govern portal routing in Paragraph [0038]. In Shuster, there is no third-party agent or parent and the user of the avatar sets their own settings. This squarely reads on "settings set by a user of the player controllable character." The attorney's amendment therefore does not distinguish Shuster on this element, and the argument attacks a mapping that was never made.
Second, Borra is relied upon solely and narrowly for denying entry not for the identity of who sets the settings. The discrete teaching borrowed from Borra is the functional step of blocking or denying access to a virtual environment when stored settings are not satisfied. It is proper to borrow a specific, well-defined technical teaching from a reference even when that reference implements it in a different operational context. The access-denial mechanism described in Borra Paragraph [0007] and [0074] which preventing a user from entering restricted content when stored settings do not allow it and it is a discrete, transferable logic technique that applies equally whether the settings were established by a parent or by the player themselves. The identity of who configured the settings is irrelevant to the denial mechanism being borrowed. Hence the combination of prior arts fully anticipate the limitations. Therefore, applicant remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In regard to Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 17-20, they directly/indirectly depends on independent Claim 1, 8, 15 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than the independent claim 1, 8, 15. The limitations in those claims in conjunction with combination previously established as explained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190094981 A1 METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CREATING VIRTUAL AND AUGMENTED REALITY
US 20160026253 A1 METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CREATING VIRTUAL AND AUGMENTED REALITY
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUJANG TSWEI whose telephone number is (571)272-6669. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Kent Chang can be reached on (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.
/YuJang Tswei/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights