DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application files on 08/11/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 08/11/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5, 12, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, “The method of claim 1, wherein the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria”. Examiner interprets that claim as “The method of claim 1, wherein the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes an ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria”.
Since claims 12 and 19 are the computer readable storage medium and system claim of claim 5, respectfully, the informality is applied to them as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an avatar creator” as claimed in claim 1 “creating, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world”.
“an ISGA trainer” as claimed in claim 1 “training, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person”.
“an ISGA adjuster” as claimed in claim 1 “changing, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse”
“an ISGA interactor” as claim in claim 4 “the avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor”.
Since claims 8 and 15 are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and system claim of claim 1, respectively, claims 8 and 15 has the same claim interpretations as claim 1.
Since claims 11 and 18 are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and system claim of claim 4, respectively, claims 11 and 18 has the same claim interpretations as claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 4, 8, 11, 13, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 “create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world; train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person; and change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. In this instance, the corresponding structure refers to computer implemented means-plus function. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details of any structure that is used to implement the avatar creator, the ISGA trainer, and the ISGA adjuster. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Since claims 8 and 15 are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and system claim of claim 1, respectively, claims 8 and 15 has the same U.S.C 112(b) rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4 “the avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. In this instance, the corresponding structure refers to computer implemented means-plus function. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details of any structure that is used to implement the ISGA interactor. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Since claims 11 and 18 are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and system claim of claim 4, respectively, claims 11 and 18 has the same U.S.C 112(b) rejection as claim 4.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 “create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world; train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person; and change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse” as described above, does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function (See 112(b) rejection above). Therefore, the specification does not appear to provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Since claims 8 and 15 are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and system claim of claim 1, respectively, claims 8 and 15 has the same U.S.C 112(a) rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4 “the avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor” as described above, does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function (See 112(b) rejection above). Therefore, the specification does not appear to provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Since claims 11 and 18 are the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and system claim of claim 4, respectively, claims 11 and 18 has the same U.S.C 112(a) rejection as claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a method, which is directed to a process, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites
creating, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally creating a persona with the same characteristics of a person in the real world).
changing, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having a persona grow and evolve based on a real person).
Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1 further recites additional elements of
supporting the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
collecting, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (this element is merely data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
training, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere instructions to apply (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
collecting, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
creating, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
training, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
changing, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 1 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
supporting the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
collecting, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world is well understood, routine, and conventional. The court has ruled that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” is recognized as a computer function that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
training, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
collecting, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
creating, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
training, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
changing, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 2:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 2 recites a method, which is directed to a process, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 1 is applied here. Therefore claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 2 further recites additional elements of
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources (this element does not integrate an abstract idea because it recites a field of use limitation to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Therefore, claim 2 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 2 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources recites a field of use limitation to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, claim 2 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 3:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 3 recites a method, which is directed to a process, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 1 is applied here. Therefore claim 3 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 3 further recites additional elements of
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere instructions to apply (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 3 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 3 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 3 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 4:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 4 recites a method, which is directed to a process, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 4 recites
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having a persona interacting with people).
Therefore, claim 4 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 4 further recites additional elements of
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 4 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 4 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 4 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 5:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 5 recites a method, which is directed to a process, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 1 is applied here. Therefore claim 5 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 5 further recites additional elements of
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 5 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 5 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 5 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 6:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 6 recites a method, which is directed to a process, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 6 recites
the avatar grows and evolves in the metaverse regardless of whether the real person is alive or deceased (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having an avatar continue to exist whether or not the real person is alive or deceased).
Therefore claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 6 does not further recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
Since there are no additional elements, claim 6 does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone or in combination. Therefore, claim 6 is subject matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 7:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 7 recites a method, which is directed to a process, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 1 is applied here. Therefore claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 7 further recites additional elements of
a knowledge database is used for storing the changing behavior and personality of the avatar (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 7 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 7 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
a knowledge database is used for storing the changing behavior and personality of the avatar uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 7 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 8:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture, and thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 8 recites
create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally creating a persona with the same characteristics of a person in the real world).
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having a persona grow and evolve based on a real person).
Therefore, claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 8 further recites additional elements of
A computer program comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
support the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
collect, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (this element is merely data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere instructions to apply (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
collect, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere instructions to apply (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 8 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 8 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
A computer program comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
support the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
collect, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world is well understood, routine, and conventional. The court has ruled that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” is recognized as a computer function that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
training, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
collect, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere instructions to apply (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, claim 8 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 9:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture, and thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 9 is dependent on claim 8, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 8 is applied here. Therefore claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 9 further recites additional elements of
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources (this element does not integrate an abstract idea because it recites a field of use limitation to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Therefore, claim 9 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 9 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources recites a field of use limitation to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, claim 9 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 10:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture, and thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 10 is dependent on claim 8, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 8 is applied here. Therefore claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 10 further recites additional elements of
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere instructions to apply (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 10 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 10 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 10 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 11:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture, and thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 11 recites
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having a persona interacting with people).
Therefore, claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 11 further recites additional elements of
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 11 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 11 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 12:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture, and thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 12 is dependent on claim 8, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 8 is applied here. Therefore claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 12 further recites additional elements of
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 12 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 12 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 12 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 13:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture, and thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 13 recites
the avatar grows and evolves in the metaverse regardless of whether the real person is alive or deceased (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having an avatar continue to exist whether or not the real person is alive or deceased).
Therefore claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 13 does not further recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 13 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
Since there are no additional elements, claim 13 does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone or in combination. Therefore, claim 13 is subject matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 14:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to a manufacture, and thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 14 is dependent on claim 8, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 8 is applied here. Therefore claim 14 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 14 further recites additional elements of
a knowledge database is used for storing the changing behavior and personality of the avatar (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 14 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 14 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
a knowledge database is used for storing the changing behavior and personality of the avatar uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 14 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 15:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 15 recites a system, which is directed to a machine, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 15 recites
create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally creating a persona with the same characteristics of a person in the real world).
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having a persona grow and evolve based on a real person).
Therefore, claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 15 further recites additional elements of
A system for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
support the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
collect, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (this element is merely data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere instructions to apply (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
collect, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 15 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
A system for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
supporting the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
collecting, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world is well understood, routine, and conventional. The court has ruled that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” is recognized as a computer function that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
collecting, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
creating, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
training, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
changing, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, claim 15 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 16:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 16 recites a system, which is directed to a machine, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 16 is dependent on claim 15, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 15 is applied here. Therefore claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 16 further recites additional elements of
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources (this element does not integrate an abstract idea because it recites a field of use limitation to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Therefore, claim 16 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 16 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources recites a field of use limitation to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, claim 16 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 17:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 17 recites a system, which is directed to a machine, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 17 is dependent on claim 15, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 15 is applied here. Therefore claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 17 further recites additional elements of
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere instructions to apply (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 17 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 17 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard is an instruction to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 17 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 18:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 18 recites a system, which is directed to a machine, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 18 recites
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having a persona interacting with people).
Therefore, claim 18 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 18 further recites additional elements of
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 18 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 18 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 19:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 19 recites a system, which is directed to a machine, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Because claim 19 is dependent on claim 15, the Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1 from claim 15 is applied here. Therefore claim 19 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 19 further recites additional elements of
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a generic computing component on which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Therefore, claim 19 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 19 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 19 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 20:
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 20 recites a system, which is directed to a machine, and thus is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 20 recites
the avatar grows and evolves in the metaverse regardless of whether the real person is alive or deceased (this limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally having an avatar continue to exist whether or not the real person is alive or deceased).
Therefore claim 20 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 20 does not further recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 20 is not integrated into a practical application.
Subject Matter of Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
Since there are no additional elements, claim 20 does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone or in combination. Therefore, claim 20 is subject matter ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 20130257876 A1) (hereafter referred to as Davis) in view of Dawson et al. (US 20100083139 A1) (hereafter referred to as Dawson).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches
A method for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse, the method comprising: supporting the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client (Davis, paragraph 0095, “FIG. 8 is a block diagram depicting example client side processing of certain avatar operations. Many avatar operations can be executed via client side applications, which can reduce stress on avatar engine 802 hardware”).
PNG
media_image1.png
697
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that the server side avatar engine maps to the server and the client side application maps to the client.
collecting, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (Davis, Abstract, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics”)
creating, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (Davis paragraph 0075, “In one embodiment, the user may log onto a website to, for example, access an ‘Avatar Builder’ or similar website as in FIG. 4. As previously described, the user may be provided options for building, customizing, and/or accessorizing one or more avatars”)
training, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (Davis, paragraph 0090, “The avatar engine 702 is configured to observe interactions 704 of a human subject 706. For example, the avatar engine 702 may observe interactions of the human subject with a first person 708, such as an interviewer 708…The avatar engine 702 may also observe interactions 704 of the human subject 706 with a second person 710 through a communication channel 712” and “At 714, the avatar engine 702 extracts personality characteristics from the observed interactions 704. Those extracted personality characteristics are used at 716 to generate or update one or more avatar characteristic tables 718 stored in an avatar data store 720. As noted above, as the human subject 706 is observed more and more, the avatar personality characteristics stored in the avatar characteristic tables 718 are continually updated to provide a more accurate and in depth model of the human subject 706” (Davis, paragraph 0093)).
changing, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (Davis, paragraph 0013, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics. A communication with the avatar is received from the communicating party. A next state for the avatar is determined using the avatar action model, where the avatar action model determines the next state based on the data from the avatar characteristic table, a current state for the avatar, and the communication. The next state for the avatar is implemented, and the avatar characteristic table is updated based on the communication from the communicating party, where a subsequent state for the avatar is determined based on the updated avatar characteristic table” and “For example, the avatar action model may determine the next state of the avatar based on behavioral data from one or more avatar characteristic tables stored in a behavioral parameters database 514. Those avatar characteristic tables may be populated based on one or more observations of a human subject, where the data stored within the avatar characteristic tables represents captured characteristics of the human subject, such as vocabulary, visual characteristics, and behavioral tendencies” (Davis. Paragraph 0083)).
Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
A method for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse, the method comprising: supporting the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client (Dawson, paragraph 0002, “A Virtual Universe (VU) is a computer-based simulated world or environment; other terms for VU's include metaverses, "3-D Internet" and Virtual World, and VU will be understood to represent any of these environments ").
changing, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (Dawson, paragraph 0002, “A Virtual Universe (VU) is a computer-based simulated world or environment; other terms for VU's include metaverses, "3-D Internet" and Virtual World, and VU will be understood to represent any of these environments ").
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to apply their method into a virtual universe from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “In order to participate within or inhabit a VU a user creates an agent which functions as the user's account, and upon which the user builds an avatar tied to an inventory of assets the user owns in the VU and associated with the agent” (Dawson, paragraph 0002) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 2, Davis and Dawson teach the method of claim 1, Davis further teaches
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources (Davis, paragraph 0064, “In various embodiments, the interactive personality simulation system comprises one or more of the following delivery modes. A puppetry mode, whereby a live actor in a call center “performs” the personality. The actor, captured by one or more cameras, directly animates the computer rendered avatar, and the actor speaks audio response(s) live to the user/customer...The personality model data is parsed into phonemes, visemes, and behavior cues” and “Additional materials related to the human subject 904 can be utilized in enhancing the “back-in-time” avatar representation. For example, earlier time period photos of the human subject 904 (e.g., photos extracted from social media postings by the human subject 904) can be utilized to provide an even more realistic depiction of the human subject in avatar form” (Davis, paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 3, Davis and Dawson teach the method of claim 1, Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (Dawson, paragraph 0037, “The AI 208 enables the virtual companion to learn information from interactions with the user avatar and the VU environment. By watching actions and behaviors of the user avatar and other avatars during the life cycle of the virtual companion 200, the AI 208 may learn that the owner avatar likes to talk or act in a certain way and thereby enable the behavior and attribute engine 206 to mimic or utilize the observed user language and mannerisms and thus behave in a fashion similar to the user's avatar”).
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to have their avatar learn from other avatars in the VU from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “the AI 208 may learn that the owner avatar likes to talk or act in a certain way and thereby enable the behavior and attribute engine 206 to mimic or utilize the observed user language and mannerisms and thus behave in a fashion similar to the user's avatar” (Dawson, paragraph 0037) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 4, Davis and Dawson teach the method of claim 1, Davis further teaches
the avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (Davis, paragraph 0075, “The user is preferably provided a capability of sending a link so that friends/family can download the user's avatar and associate it with the user's cell number. Those who downloaded the avatar and association would see the user's avatar when the user calls, with the user's avatar animating the words spoken by the user during the phone call”)
Regarding claim 5, Davis and Dawson teach the method of claim 1, Davis teaches
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (Davis, Abstract, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics”).
Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (Dawson, paragraph 0022, “FIG. 2 illustrates a method and process according to the present invention for providing a companion avatar for engagement with a user avatar. At 102 a VU resident or user requests or activates a companion and at 104 a Companion-Creator System (CCS) accesses data and other information associated with the VU user comprising a user profile and analyses the profile information at 106” and “the plurality of pre-defined companion attributes by selecting a subset of attributes from a plurality of possible avatar attributes, the selecting a function of a permission criteria entered by another party” (Dawson, claim 3). Examiner notes that the CSS maps to the manager).
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to use the CSS from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “companion is configured to make the VU life more enjoyable for the user avatar, and thus function as an advocate for the interests of the user avatar even where they may conflict with those of the VU world or a VU region provider, and further customized and tailored to meet the wants and needs of the avatar as reflected by the user profile” (Dawson, paragraph 0022) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 6, Davis and Dawson teach the method of claim 1, Davis further teaches
the avatar grows and evolves in the metaverse regardless of whether the real person is alive or deceased (Davis, paragraph 0060, “For example, the one or more users 232 may comprise a family, such as a father 236, mother 238, son 240, and daughter 242, with the interactive personality simulation system 200 having been designed and populated with behavioral and personality characteristics for interactive photo-realistic personality simulation of the kids' deceased grandfather as the target person 208. The kids 240, 242 may interact with the grandfather's avatar 246, asking him questions via keyboard 244 and/or input sensor(s) 234, with the system 200 capable of "remembering" and "learning" from various interactions and providing modified avatar manipulations in response to the prior interactions”)
Regarding claim 7, Davis and Dawson teach the method of claim 1, Davis further teaches
a knowledge database is used for storing the changing behavior and personality of the avatar (Davis, paragraph 0093, “At 714, the avatar engine 702 extracts personality characteristics from the observed interactions 704. Those extracted personality characteristics are used at 716 to generate or update one or more avatar characteristic tables 718 stored in an avatar data store” and “In FIG. 12, an avatar engine 1202 observes a human subject 1204 to generate at 1206 an avatar characteristic table 1208, which is stored in an avatar data store 1210. The avatar characteristic table 1208 may be adjusted over time based on subsequent observations of the human subject 1204 or interactions of an avatar based on the avatar characteristic table 1208 with certain stimuli. Each iteration of the avatar characteristic table 1208 may be saved as a time series snapshot of the human subject” (Davis, paragraph 0112)).
Regarding claim 8, Davis teaches
A computer program comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to (Davis, paragraph 0015, “a computer-readable medium is encoded with instructions for commanding one or more data processors to execute steps of a method for providing an interactive avatar”).
support the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client (Davis, paragraph 0095, “FIG. 8 is a block diagram depicting example client side processing of certain avatar operations. Many avatar operations can be executed via client side applications, which can reduce stress on avatar engine 802 hardware”).
PNG
media_image1.png
697
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that the server side avatar engine maps to the server and the client side application maps to the client.
collect, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (Davis, Abstract, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics”)
create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (Davis paragraph 0075, “In one embodiment, the user may log onto a website to, for example, access an ‘Avatar Builder’ or similar website as in FIG. 4. As previously described, the user may be provided options for building, customizing, and/or accessorizing one or more avatars”)
train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (Davis, paragraph 0090, “The avatar engine 702 is configured to observe interactions 704 of a human subject 706. For example, the avatar engine 702 may observe interactions of the human subject with a first person 708, such as an interviewer 708…The avatar engine 702 may also observe interactions 704 of the human subject 706 with a second person 710 through a communication channel 712” and “At 714, the avatar engine 702 extracts personality characteristics from the observed interactions 704. Those extracted personality characteristics are used at 716 to generate or update one or more avatar characteristic tables 718 stored in an avatar data store 720. As noted above, as the human subject 706 is observed more and more, the avatar personality characteristics stored in the avatar characteristic tables 718 are continually updated to provide a more accurate and in depth model of the human subject 706” (Davis, paragraph 0093)).
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (Davis, paragraph 0013, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics. A communication with the avatar is received from the communicating party. A next state for the avatar is determined using the avatar action model, where the avatar action model determines the next state based on the data from the avatar characteristic table, a current state for the avatar, and the communication. The next state for the avatar is implemented, and the avatar characteristic table is updated based on the communication from the communicating party, where a subsequent state for the avatar is determined based on the updated avatar characteristic table” and “For example, the avatar action model may determine the next state of the avatar based on behavioral data from one or more avatar characteristic tables stored in a behavioral parameters database 514. Those avatar characteristic tables may be populated based on one or more observations of a human subject, where the data stored within the avatar characteristic tables represents captured characteristics of the human subject, such as vocabulary, visual characteristics, and behavioral tendencies” (Davis. Paragraph 0083)).
Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
A computer program comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to (Dawson, paragraph 0002, “A Virtual Universe (VU) is a computer-based simulated world or environment; other terms for VU's include metaverses, "3-D Internet" and Virtual World, and VU will be understood to represent any of these environments ").
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (Dawson, paragraph 0002, “A Virtual Universe (VU) is a computer-based simulated world or environment; other terms for VU's include metaverses, "3-D Internet" and Virtual World, and VU will be understood to represent any of these environments ").
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to apply their method into a virtual universe from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “In order to participate within or inhabit a VU a user creates an agent which functions as the user's account, and upon which the user builds an avatar tied to an inventory of assets the user owns in the VU and associated with the agent” (Dawson, paragraph 0002) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 9, Davis and Dawson teach the product of claim 8, Davis further teaches
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources (Davis, paragraph 0064, “In various embodiments, the interactive personality simulation system comprises one or more of the following delivery modes. A puppetry mode, whereby a live actor in a call center “performs” the personality. The actor, captured by one or more cameras, directly animates the computer rendered avatar, and the actor speaks audio response(s) live to the user/customer...The personality model data is parsed into phonemes, visemes, and behavior cues” and “Additional materials related to the human subject 904 can be utilized in enhancing the “back-in-time” avatar representation. For example, earlier time period photos of the human subject 904 (e.g., photos extracted from social media postings by the human subject 904) can be utilized to provide an even more realistic depiction of the human subject in avatar form” (Davis, paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 10, Davis and Dawson teach the product of claim 8, Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (Dawson, paragraph 0037, “The AI 208 enables the virtual companion to learn information from interactions with the user avatar and the VU environment. By watching actions and behaviors of the user avatar and other avatars during the life cycle of the virtual companion 200, the AI 208 may learn that the owner avatar likes to talk or act in a certain way and thereby enable the behavior and attribute engine 206 to mimic or utilize the observed user language and mannerisms and thus behave in a fashion similar to the user's avatar”).
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to have their avatar learn from other avatars in the VU from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “the AI 208 may learn that the owner avatar likes to talk or act in a certain way and thereby enable the behavior and attribute engine 206 to mimic or utilize the observed user language and mannerisms and thus behave in a fashion similar to the user's avatar” (Dawson, paragraph 0037) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 11, Davis and Dawson teach the product of claim 8, Davis further teaches
the avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (Davis, paragraph 0075, “The user is preferably provided a capability of sending a link so that friends/family can download the user's avatar and associate it with the user's cell number. Those who downloaded the avatar and association would see the user's avatar when the user calls, with the user's avatar animating the words spoken by the user during the phone call”)
Regarding claim 12, Davis and Dawson teach the product of claim 8, Davis teaches
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (Davis, Abstract, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics”).
Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (Dawson, paragraph 0022, “FIG. 2 illustrates a method and process according to the present invention for providing a companion avatar for engagement with a user avatar. At 102 a VU resident or user requests or activates a companion and at 104 a Companion-Creator System (CCS) accesses data and other information associated with the VU user comprising a user profile and analyses the profile information at 106” and “the plurality of pre-defined companion attributes by selecting a subset of attributes from a plurality of possible avatar attributes, the selecting a function of a permission criteria entered by another party” (Dawson, claim 3). Examiner notes that the CSS maps to the manager).
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to use the CSS from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “companion is configured to make the VU life more enjoyable for the user avatar, and thus function as an advocate for the interests of the user avatar even where they may conflict with those of the VU world or a VU region provider, and further customized and tailored to meet the wants and needs of the avatar as reflected by the user profile” (Dawson, paragraph 0022) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 13, Davis and Dawson teach the product of claim 8, Davis further teaches
the avatar grows and evolves in the metaverse regardless of whether the real person is alive or deceased (Davis, paragraph 0060, “For example, the one or more users 232 may comprise a family, such as a father 236, mother 238, son 240, and daughter 242, with the interactive personality simulation system 200 having been designed and populated with behavioral and personality characteristics for interactive photo-realistic personality simulation of the kids' deceased grandfather as the target person 208. The kids 240, 242 may interact with the grandfather's avatar 246, asking him questions via keyboard 244 and/or input sensor(s) 234, with the system 200 capable of "remembering" and "learning" from various interactions and providing modified avatar manipulations in response to the prior interactions”)
Regarding claim 14, Davis and Dawson teach the product of claim 8, Davis further teaches
a knowledge database is used for storing the changing behavior and personality of the avatar (Davis, paragraph 0093, “At 714, the avatar engine 702 extracts personality characteristics from the observed interactions 704. Those extracted personality characteristics are used at 716 to generate or update one or more avatar characteristic tables 718 stored in an avatar data store” and “In FIG. 12, an avatar engine 1202 observes a human subject 1204 to generate at 1206 an avatar characteristic table 1208, which is stored in an avatar data store 1210. The avatar characteristic table 1208 may be adjusted over time based on subsequent observations of the human subject 1204 or interactions of an avatar based on the avatar characteristic table 1208 with certain stimuli. Each iteration of the avatar characteristic table 1208 may be saved as a time series snapshot of the human subject” (Davis, paragraph 0112)).
Regarding claim 15, Davis teaches
A system for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse (Davis, paragraph 0014, “a system for providing an interactive avatar includes one or more data processors and one or more computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions for commanding the one or more data processors to execute steps”).
support the ISGA with an ISGA server communicating with an ISGA client (Davis, paragraph 0095, “FIG. 8 is a block diagram depicting example client side processing of certain avatar operations. Many avatar operations can be executed via client side applications, which can reduce stress on avatar engine 802 hardware”).
PNG
media_image1.png
697
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that the server side avatar engine maps to the server and the client side application maps to the client.
collect, via an ISGA data structure, personal characteristics and activities of a person in a real world (Davis, Abstract, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics”)
create, via an avatar creator, an avatar having the personal characteristics of the person in the real world (Davis paragraph 0075, “In one embodiment, the user may log onto a website to, for example, access an ‘Avatar Builder’ or similar website as in FIG. 4. As previously described, the user may be provided options for building, customizing, and/or accessorizing one or more avatars”)
train, via an ISGA trainer, the avatar to recognize and respond to the activities and relationships of the real person (Davis, paragraph 0090, “The avatar engine 702 is configured to observe interactions 704 of a human subject 706. For example, the avatar engine 702 may observe interactions of the human subject with a first person 708, such as an interviewer 708…The avatar engine 702 may also observe interactions 704 of the human subject 706 with a second person 710 through a communication channel 712” and “At 714, the avatar engine 702 extracts personality characteristics from the observed interactions 704. Those extracted personality characteristics are used at 716 to generate or update one or more avatar characteristic tables 718 stored in an avatar data store 720. As noted above, as the human subject 706 is observed more and more, the avatar personality characteristics stored in the avatar characteristic tables 718 are continually updated to provide a more accurate and in depth model of the human subject 706” (Davis, paragraph 0093)).
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (Davis, paragraph 0013, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics. A communication with the avatar is received from the communicating party. A next state for the avatar is determined using the avatar action model, where the avatar action model determines the next state based on the data from the avatar characteristic table, a current state for the avatar, and the communication. The next state for the avatar is implemented, and the avatar characteristic table is updated based on the communication from the communicating party, where a subsequent state for the avatar is determined based on the updated avatar characteristic table” and “For example, the avatar action model may determine the next state of the avatar based on behavioral data from one or more avatar characteristic tables stored in a behavioral parameters database 514. Those avatar characteristic tables may be populated based on one or more observations of a human subject, where the data stored within the avatar characteristic tables represents captured characteristics of the human subject, such as vocabulary, visual characteristics, and behavioral tendencies” (Davis. Paragraph 0083)).
Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
A system for maintaining an intelligent self-growing avatar (ISGA) in a metaverse (Dawson, paragraph 0002, “A Virtual Universe (VU) is a computer-based simulated world or environment; other terms for VU's include metaverses, "3-D Internet" and Virtual World, and VU will be understood to represent any of these environments ").
change, via an ISGA adjuster, a behavior and personality of the avatar based on the activities and relationships of the real person in the real world to allow the avatar to continuously grow and evolve in the metaverse (Dawson, paragraph 0002, “A Virtual Universe (VU) is a computer-based simulated world or environment; other terms for VU's include metaverses, "3-D Internet" and Virtual World, and VU will be understood to represent any of these environments ").
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to apply their method into a virtual universe from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “In order to participate within or inhabit a VU a user creates an agent which functions as the user's account, and upon which the user builds an avatar tied to an inventory of assets the user owns in the VU and associated with the agent” (Dawson, paragraph 0002) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 16, Davis and Dawson teach the system of claim 15, Davis further teaches
the personal characteristics and activities of the person in the real world are collected by machine learning techniques from social media accounts, voice recordings, video recordings, and other digital sources (Davis, paragraph 0064, “In various embodiments, the interactive personality simulation system comprises one or more of the following delivery modes. A puppetry mode, whereby a live actor in a call center “performs” the personality. The actor, captured by one or more cameras, directly animates the computer rendered avatar, and the actor speaks audio response(s) live to the user/customer...The personality model data is parsed into phonemes, visemes, and behavior cues” and “Additional materials related to the human subject 904 can be utilized in enhancing the “back-in-time” avatar representation. For example, earlier time period photos of the human subject 904 (e.g., photos extracted from social media postings by the human subject 904) can be utilized to provide an even more realistic depiction of the human subject in avatar form” (Davis, paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 17, Davis and Dawson teach the system of claim 15, Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
the avatar continuously acquires new skills and knowledge by interacting with other avatars in the metaverse by using an ISGA study wizard (Dawson, paragraph 0037, “The AI 208 enables the virtual companion to learn information from interactions with the user avatar and the VU environment. By watching actions and behaviors of the user avatar and other avatars during the life cycle of the virtual companion 200, the AI 208 may learn that the owner avatar likes to talk or act in a certain way and thereby enable the behavior and attribute engine 206 to mimic or utilize the observed user language and mannerisms and thus behave in a fashion similar to the user's avatar”).
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to have their avatar learn from other avatars in the VU from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “the AI 208 may learn that the owner avatar likes to talk or act in a certain way and thereby enable the behavior and attribute engine 206 to mimic or utilize the observed user language and mannerisms and thus behave in a fashion similar to the user's avatar” (Dawson, paragraph 0037) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 18, Davis and Dawson teach the system of claim 15, Davis further teaches
the avatar interacts with a friend, family, and colleague of the real person in the metaverse via an ISGA interactor (Davis, paragraph 0075, “The user is preferably provided a capability of sending a link so that friends/family can download the user's avatar and associate it with the user's cell number. Those who downloaded the avatar and association would see the user's avatar when the user calls, with the user's avatar animating the words spoken by the user during the phone call”)
Regarding claim 19, Davis and Dawson teach the system of claim 15, Davis teaches
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (Davis, Abstract, “Data from an avatar characteristic table is provided to an avatar action model, where the avatar characteristic table is a data structure stored on a computer-readable medium that includes values for a plurality of avatar personality characteristics”).
Davis does not teach, but Dawson does teach
the ISGA data structure is part of an ISGA manager that further includes and ISGA service profile and ISGA criteria (Dawson, paragraph 0022, “FIG. 2 illustrates a method and process according to the present invention for providing a companion avatar for engagement with a user avatar. At 102 a VU resident or user requests or activates a companion and at 104 a Companion-Creator System (CCS) accesses data and other information associated with the VU user comprising a user profile and analyses the profile information at 106” and “the plurality of pre-defined companion attributes by selecting a subset of attributes from a plurality of possible avatar attributes, the selecting a function of a permission criteria entered by another party” (Dawson, claim 3). Examiner notes that the CSS maps to the manager).
Davis and Dawson are analogous to the claimed invention because they deal with artificial intelligence avatars. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling to have modified Davis to use the CSS from Dawson. Dawson teaches that “companion is configured to make the VU life more enjoyable for the user avatar, and thus function as an advocate for the interests of the user avatar even where they may conflict with those of the VU world or a VU region provider, and further customized and tailored to meet the wants and needs of the avatar as reflected by the user profile” (Dawson, paragraph 0022) (See MPEP 2141 (III)(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 20, Davis and Dawson teach the system of claim 15, Davis further teaches
the avatar grows and evolves in the metaverse regardless of whether the real person is alive or deceased (Davis, paragraph 0060, “For example, the one or more users 232 may comprise a family, such as a father 236, mother 238, son 240, and daughter 242, with the interactive personality simulation system 200 having been designed and populated with behavioral and personality characteristics for interactive photo-realistic personality simulation of the kids' deceased grandfather as the target person 208. The kids 240, 242 may interact with the grandfather's avatar 246, asking him questions via keyboard 244 and/or input sensor(s) 234, with the system 200 capable of "remembering" and "learning" from various interactions and providing modified avatar manipulations in response to the prior interactions”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ribeira et al. (US 20170213473 A1) discloses a simulation that provides a training environment spanning one or more physical locations in which one or more virtual avatars representing purely virtual objects or persons or real physical objects or persons which are located at a different physical location are projected into the physical space. Yoo et al. (KR 20230066950 A) discloses a system and method for growing a virtual avatar based on real sports activities, and more particularly, to a technology for growing a user's avatar in a virtual world according to the user's real sports activities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN VO whose telephone number is (571)272-9622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 7-3 pm 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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2148 /MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights