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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zavesky et al. (US 20240144571, hereinafter Zavesky)
Regarding claim 8, “A system of a user buying or renting an avatar from a designer of the avatar” Zavesky teaches (¶0093) avatar may be designed and offered for sale or rent on specified terms; (¶0001) for virtual reality
As to “the designer placing restrictions on uses of the avatar; restrictions being one or more of: (a) rooms that the avatar can visit, (b) weapons that the avatar can carry, (c) whether a weapon can be carried openly or concealed, (d) modifications to clothing worn by the avatar, (e) restrictions to images or slogans on the exterior of the avatar.” Zavesky teaches (¶0093) A user may then acquire the rights to use that avatar in one or more metaverses. The rights may limit the extent to which the user can modify the avatar or the particular platforms or metaverses on which that avatar may be used. The original design of the avatar may specify and control how the avatar is modified when extended to other platforms or metaverses; (¶0066) limit the changes that can be made to a respective user avatar in a respective metaverse; (¶0053, Claim 4) limiting the modifying the visual appearance of the user avatar according to the avatar policies
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) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky in view of “Fallout_New_Vegas_vid1” NPL.
Regarding claim 10, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 8, where: the avatar is in a VR room; the avatar scans a nearby weapon; the avatar detecting that the weapon is a firearm; the room having a restriction is that the firearm can be carried concealed; the avatar doing a concealed carry of the firearm.” However, Fallout_New_Vegas_vid1 teaches (11:19) an option to keep holdout weapons; (11:34) holdout/concealed weapon is a firearm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with the holdout of weapons as taught by Fallout_New_Vegas_vid1 for the benefit of creating a more immersive and enjoyable experience for the user.
Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky in view of “Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2” NPL and “Zelda_Breath_of_the_Wild” NPL.
Regarding claim 11, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 8, where: the avatar enters a VR room; the room scans the avatar; the room finds the avatar is doing an open carry of a weapon prohibited by the room; the avatar moves the weapon to a list of weapons held by the room; … the avatar interacts with other entities in the room; the avatar moves the weapon from the list of weapons to itself; the avatar leaves the room.” However, Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 teaches (1:10-1:25) a user avatar enters a room; (1:32) no weapons/guns are allowed in the room; (1:37-1:38) an option to hand over all weapons; (1:39) weapons are returned on the way out. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with the handing over of weapons as taught by Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 for the benefit of creating a more immersive and enjoyable experience for the user.
Zavesky and Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 do not teach “the image of the avatar is redrawn.” However, Zelda_Breath_of_the_Wild teaches (1:14) items can be dropped by player; (1:40-1:48) items are taken away by environment; (1:52-1:55) avatar is redrawn without items/equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky and Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 with redrawing the avatar as taught by Zelda_Breath_of_the_Wild for the benefit of creating a more immersive and enjoyable experience for the user.
Claim(s) 12-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky in view of Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 NPL.
Regarding claim 12, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 8, where: the avatar enters a VR room; the room queries an inventory API of the avatar; the room finds a prohibited item on the avatar; the room moves the prohibited item to a list held by the room; the avatar interacts with other entities in the room; the room moves the prohibited item to the avatar; the avatar leaves the room.” However, Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 teaches (1:10-1:25) a user avatar enters a room; (1:32) no weapons/guns are allowed in the room; (1:37-1:38) an option to hand over all weapons; (1:39) weapons are returned on the way out. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with the handing over of weapons as taught by Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 for the benefit of creating a more immersive and enjoyable experience for the user.
Regarding claim 13, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 8, where: the avatar enters a VR room; the room scans the avatar; the room finds the avatar openly wearing a prohibited image; the avatar covering the image or removing the prohibited image; the avatar interacts with other entities in the room.” However, Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 teaches (1:10-1:25) a user avatar enters a room; (1:32) no weapons/guns are allowed in the room; (1:37-1:38) a user hands over weapons; (1:39) weapons are returned on the way out. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with the handing over of weapons as taught by Fallout_New_Vegas_vid2 for the benefit of creating a more immersive and enjoyable experience for the user.
Claim(s) 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky in view of “Zelda_Breath_of_the_Wild” NPL.
Regarding claim 14, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 8, where: the avatar wears a garment made by the designer; the designer prohibits the wearing of the garment in a VR room or in a location in the room; the avatar removes the garment while it is in the VR room.” However, Zelda_Breath_of_the_Wild teaches (1:14) items can be dropped by player; (1:40-1:48) items are taken away by environment; (1:52-1:55) avatar is redrawn without items/equipment including garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with removing garments from the avatar as taught by Zelda_Breath_of_the_Wild for the benefit of creating a more immersive and enjoyable experience for the user.
Claim(s) 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky in view of Blatchley et al. (US 20090144105, hereinafter Blatchley.)
Regarding claim 16, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 8, where: the avatar visits a VR room; the room shows images or slogans on the avatar; the room pays the user.” However, Blatchley teaches (¶0015) The advertisement could be placed on several areas of the avatar's space, for instance, on a sign that is held or floats somewhere near the avatar, on that avatar's accessories, on any avatar pets. The virtual world user could receive more payment or benefit for each piece of customization that he/she puts an advertisement on. The amount of payment/benefit to the user could be based in proportion to the amount of visibility he/she provides in the virtual world. For example if the user walks around a lot (gets high mileage) he would be paid more. If the person is seen more by other users, they are paid more (this could be calculated based on point of users observations). The invention would additionally provide the ability to have the clothing/sign associated with the avatar/pet to change in accordance with who is looking at him/her/it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with the avatar advertising as taught by Blatchley for the benefit of allowing advertising companies to market themselves and advertise their goods and services and their company as a whole within virtual worlds, such that, more advertising opportunity can be obtained (¶0002.)
Regarding claim 17, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 8, where: the avatar visits a VR room; an avatar Psi is in the room; Psi sends images and slogans to the avatar; the avatar shows the images and slogans on its outer surface; Psi pays the user.” However, Blatchley teaches (¶0015) The advertisement could be placed on several areas of the avatar's space, for instance, on a sign that is held or floats somewhere near the avatar, on that avatar's accessories, on any avatar pets. The virtual world user could receive more payment or benefit for each piece of customization that he/she puts an advertisement on. The amount of payment/benefit to the user could be based in proportion to the amount of visibility he/she provides in the virtual world. For example if the user walks around a lot (gets high mileage) he would be paid more. If the person is seen more by other users, they are paid more (this could be calculated based on point of users observations). The invention would additionally provide the ability to have the clothing/sign associated with the avatar/pet to change in accordance with who is looking at him/her/it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with the avatar advertising as taught by Blatchley for the benefit of allowing advertising companies to market themselves and advertise their goods and services and their company as a whole within virtual worlds, such that, more advertising opportunity can be obtained (¶0002.)
Claim(s) 19-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky in view of “Mortal Kombat” NPL.
Regarding claim 19, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 18, where: the user tries out an avatar designed for combat, in a combat room; the combat room being equipped with combat bots; the combat bots being provided by the designer; the user using the avatar to fight the combat bots.” However, Mortal Kombat teaches (0:14) selecting a CPU/bot to fight against in a lobby; (0:48) fighting the selected CPU/bot in a combat room. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with the fighting bots as taught by Mortal Kombat for the benefit practicing.
Regarding claim 20, Zavesky does not teach “The system of claim 18, where: the user tries out an avatar designed for combat, in a combat room;the user brings combat bots to the combat room; the user uses the avatar to fight the combat bots.” However, Mortal Kombat teaches (0:14) selecting a CPU/bot to fight against in a lobby; (0:48) fighting the selected CPU/bot in a combat room. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the VR system as taught by Zaesky with the fighting bots as taught by Mortal Kombat for the benefit practicing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9, 15, and 18 is/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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamilton, II et al. (US 20090265755) – (Fig. 4 and ¶0038) different groups of avatars with different access levels to different regions in virtual world
Bennett et al. (US 20230024836) – (¶0078) target player's virtual character discard it to make room in the player's limited inventory to pick up a weapon the player may find useful based on the player's gameplay style
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9629. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Brian T. Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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.
/Frank Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425