DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are 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.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite “determining that the target user has a hostile relationship with the peer user based on the biometric parameter”. Specification doesn’t have support of hostile relationship determination based on biometric parameter. Paragraph [0048] and paragraph [0083] defines hostile relationship but not based on biometric parameter.
See “[0083] At step 1204, the user relationship module 320 determines and maintains, for at least a subset of peer users discovered by the virtual environment server 110, a relationship score representing different levels of relationship between the peer user and the target user. For example, the relationship score may be rated on a 1-to-10 scale with 1 denoting the most hostile relationship and 10 denoting the most intimate relationship”.
Claims 2-8, 10-12 and 15 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20100081508 “Bhogal”) in view of Sakata et al. (US Patent No. 8326456 “Sakata”), Garbow et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20090174702 “Garbow”) and Zhang et al. (US Pat. No. 10346477 “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1 Bhogal teaches A method (“ABSTRACT : Methods, program products, services and devices are provided for protecting a protected avatar from actions of a second avatar within a virtual universe. Protection is implemented for a protected avatar from a second avatar within a virtual universe”), comprising:
generating an avatar for a target user in a multi-user virtual environment (“[0002]…… 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”);
determining a relationship between the target user and a peer user (“[0033] A relationship of the protected avatar 120 relative to the second avatar 130 may be used to define the respective avatars and their obligations; for example, the user of the protected avatar 120 may be a child and the user of the second avatar 130 may be an adult who has a history or other behavioral attribute indicating that he or she may pose a threat to children in general”) but doesn’t expressly teach relationship score;
Sakata teaches determining a relationship score between the target user and a peer user (Col 19 lines 51-52 “For example, as FIG. 19 shows, a priority level is given to each user based on social relationship among users”);
Bhogal and Sakata are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Bhogal by determining a relationship score between the target user and a peer user as taught by Sakata.
The motivation for the above is to digitally express the relationship for easier processing of virtual space.
Bhogal modified by Sakata teaches creating a personal space around the avatar of the target user, wherein a boundary of the personal space is computed based on the relationship score with the peer user (Bhogal “[0030]…. A protection protocol implemented within the context and framework of the virtual universe 118 results in an exclusion zone 122 projected about a protected avatar 120. More particularly, a second potentially-harmful avatar 130, identified by the implemented protection protocol as hostile to the protected avatar 120, is prevented from approaching or otherwise locating spatially close to the protected avatar 120 within the virtual universe 118 within the exclusion zone 122”.
Sakata Col 19 48-49 “The size of the personal space may be changed based on social relationship between the user and the humans”);
Bhogal modified by Sakata is silent about determining a biometric parameter of the target user; determining that the target user has a hostile relationship with the peer user based on the biometric parameter;
Garbow teaches determining a biometric parameter of the target user (ABSTRACT “ The inappropriate interactions may be detected by examining characteristics of the interactions between a child and another user (e.g., communications, transactions, etc.), by monitoring physical signs of stress in the child (e.g., based on facial gestures, heart rate, etc.)”);
determining that the target user has a hostile relationship with the peer user based on the biometric parameter (Garbow ABSTRACT “ The inappropriate interactions may be detected by examining characteristics of the interactions between a child and another user (e.g., communications, transactions, etc.), by monitoring physical signs of stress in the child (e.g., based on facial gestures, heart rate, etc.) [0017] However, some problems of interacting in the physical world may also occur in the virtual world. In particular, child users (e.g., users below the age of 18 years) of a virtual world may be subject to inappropriate interactions with other users. Such inappropriate interactions may include bullying, stalking, exploitation, fraud, intimidation, and sexual harassment”);
Garbow and Bhogal modified by Sakata are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Bhogal modified by Sakata by determining a biometric parameter of the target user and determining that the target user has a hostile relationship with the peer user based on the biometric parameter as taught by Garbow.
The motivation for the above is to enable a protection to the target user.
Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow is silent about subtracting a personal space of the peer user from the personal space of the target user;
Zhang teaches subtracting intersection from two spaces (Col 13 lines 37-41 “compute the domain region for the retrieved interest point; (3) determine whether there is an intersection between the domain region and the candidate safe region; and (4) if there is an intersection, compute it; refine the candidate safe region by re-defining it as the intersection subtracted from the candidate safe region”);
Zhang and Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Bhogal as modified by Sakata and Garbow by subtracting a personal space of the peer user from the personal space of the target user similar to subtracting intersection from two spaces as taught by Zhang.
The motivation for the above is to create a safe and restricted environment for the target user.
Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches updating the boundary of the personal space of the target user based on the subtracting of the personal space (
Zhang subtracts intersection from two spaces and as a result Zhang updates the personal space of the target user Col 13 lines 37-41 “compute the domain region for the retrieved interest point; (3) determine whether there is an intersection between the domain region and the candidate safe region; and (4) if there is an intersection, compute it; refine the candidate safe region by re-defining it as the intersection subtracted from the candidate safe region”); This teaching of Zhang is applied on the personal space of the Bhogal to update the boundary of the personal space based on the subtracting of the personal space )
detecting an avatar of the peer user crossing the updated boundary of the personal space (Bhogal “[0037] Triggering application of protective measures of a VU-implemented protocol, for example in response to detecting a rule violation at 108 of FIG. 1 as described above, may comprise a variety of trigger mechanisms, illustratively including a proximity threshold violation, for example an unauthorized adult second avatar 130 is detected within a threshold permissible radius of a child protected avatar 120”);
and applying rules to the peer user to restrict interactions with the target user (“Bhogal [0038] Illustrative but not exhaustive protocol protective actions or restrictions, for example an action taken at 110 of FIG. 1 as described above, include: transporting the protected avatar to a safe region or environment, for example transporting a child protected avatar 120 to a location within the VU beside or within a safe penumbra of a parent's avatar; providing a graphical indication 142 to the protected avatar 120 to illustrate and convey that the second avatar 130 is within a certain proximate distance or radius value; notifying a third party (e.g. a parent) of an implemented protocol rule violation or other trigger; preventing either of the protected avatar 120 or the second avatar 130 from being with a specified distance or radius defined by the exclusion zone 122 of the other of the protected avatar 120 and the second avatar 130”).
Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (“Bhogal [0061] It is understood that the terms "computer-readable medium" or "computer-useable medium" comprise one or more of any type of physical embodiment of the program code”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions performed by the steps of method claim 1 and therefore claim 13 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 is directed to a system claim (one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon instructions “Bhogal [0055] As shown, the computer system 304 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 312, a memory 316, a bus 320, and input/output (I/O) interfaces 324. Further, the computer system 304 is shown in communication with external I/O devices/resources 328 and storage system 332. In general, the processing unit 312 executes computer program code, such as the code to implement various components of the present invention. [0057] The computer infrastructure 308 is only illustrative of various types of computer infrastructures for implementing the invention. For example, in one embodiment, computer infrastructure 308 comprises two or more computing devices (e.g., a server cluster)”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions performed by the steps of method claim 1 and therefore claim 14 is also rejected with the same rationale as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2 Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches wherein the rules applied to the peer user restrict movements of the peer user. (“Bhogal [0038] Illustrative but not exhaustive protocol protective actions or restrictions, for example an action taken at 110 of FIG. 1 as described above, include: transporting the protected avatar to a safe region or environment, for example transporting a child protected avatar 120 to a location within the VU beside or within a safe penumbra of a parent's avatar; providing a graphical indication 142 to the protected avatar 120 to illustrate and convey that the second avatar 130 is within a certain proximate distance or radius value; notifying a third party (e.g. a parent) of an implemented protocol rule violation or other trigger; preventing either of the protected avatar 120 or the second avatar 130 from being with a specified distance or radius defined by the exclusion zone 122 of the other of the protected avatar 120 and the second avatar 130”).
Regarding claim 3, Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches wherein the rules applied to the peer user silence a chat of the peer user, disable an action of the peer user, or nullify an effect of the peer user's action (Bhogal “[0040] Protective actions and restrictions may include warning the second avatar 130 that a real-life restraining order from a court is known and recognized by the virtual universe provider, and informing the second avatar 130 through a graphic warning 144 that the VU provider is thereby required by law to report any inappropriate behavior by the second avatar 130 towards the protected avatar 120 to an appropriate authority”).
Regarding claim 4, Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches further comprising the steps of, when the peer user's avatar approaches the personal space of the target user, notifying the peer user and prompting the target user to allow the peer user's avatar to enter the personal space (Bhogal “[0041] Implemented protocol administration may also be a function of time. For example, in one embodiment if a restricted second avatar's 130 behavior is determined to fall within appropriate or permitted guidelines for a specified elapsed period of time relative to the protected avatar 120, then certain restrictions on the second avatar 130 under the protocol may be relaxed, for example enabling the second avatar 130 to teleport to new regions occupied by the protected avatar 120 without presuming said teleporting constituted an indication of stalking behavior, or even allowing the second avatar 130 to approach within the exclusion zone 122”).
Regarding claim 5, Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches monitoring target user's stress level based on biometric parameter (ABSTRACT “ The inappropriate interactions may be detected by examining characteristics of the interactions between a child and another user (e.g., communications, transactions, etc.), by monitoring physical signs of stress in the child (e.g., based on facial gestures, heart rate, etc.)”.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have further modified Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow by monitoring target user's stress level based on biometric parameter as taught by Garbow.
The motivation for the above is to enable a different way of measuring social interaction).
Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches increasing the boundary of the personal space when the stress level increases (after including Garbow’s teaching now Bhogal has stress level detection feature. Garbow takes preventive action (altering the virtual world) based on level of severity. Bhogal modified by Sakata teaches depending on stress level (user’s emotion) personal space is increased.
Sakata Col 20 lines 32-35 “ The size of the personal space may be changed according to the emotion of the user. For example, if the emotion estimation unit estimates that that the user's emotion is "uncomfortable" or "anger", the size of the personal space will be increased”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches further comprising the steps of: detecting negative social interactions performed by the peer user; increasing the boundary of the personal space; and escalating the restriction of the peer user's interactions with the target user (Bhogal “[0037]….. for example parsing a second avatar 130 text communication 132 to determine that Avatar 2 uses offensive language or terms 134 and hence should be proscribed from contact with a child protected avatar 120, or that previous chats between the protected avatar 120 and the second avatar 130 comprise offensive or threatening words or phrases. [0038] Illustrative but not exhaustive protocol protective actions or restrictions, for example an action taken at 110 of FIG. 1 as described above, include: transporting the protected avatar to a safe region or environment, for example transporting a child protected avatar 120 to a location within the VU beside or within a safe penumbra of a parent's avatar;…. preventing either of the protected avatar 120 or the second avatar 130 from being with a specified distance or radius defined by the exclusion zone 122 of the other of the protected avatar 120 and the second avatar 130.
Sakata Col 20 lines 32-35 “ The size of the personal space may be changed according to the emotion of the user. For example, if the emotion estimation unit estimates that that the user's emotion is "uncomfortable" or "anger", the size of the personal space will be increased”).
Regarding claim 7 Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches, further comprising the steps of: detecting threatening objects crossing the boundary of the personal space; and restricting movement and effects of the threatening objects (Bhogal “[0037] Triggering application of protective measures of a VU-implemented protocol, for example in response to detecting a rule violation at 108 of FIG. 1 as described above, may comprise a variety of trigger mechanisms, illustratively including a proximity threshold violation, for example an unauthorized adult second avatar 130 is detected within a threshold permissible radius of a child protected avatar 120; detecting presence or possession of a specific banned inventory item 126 or class of item 126, for example, the second avatar 130 has a weapon, malicious software, etc. item 126; [0040] Protective actions and restrictions may include warning the second avatar 130 that a real-life restraining order from a court is known and recognized by the virtual universe provider, and informing the second avatar 130 through a graphic warning 144 that the VU provider is thereby required by law to report any inappropriate behavior by the second avatar 130 towards the protected avatar 120 to an appropriate authority”).
Regarding claim 8 Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches, further comprising the step of aggregating personal spaces of a first target user and a second target user, when both the first and second target users have a friendly relationship score with the peer user, so that the peer user can access the intersection of the personal spaces (Sakara Col 20 lines 44-49 “For example, for defining an extended personal space between two users having a conversation as the case of "two people" in FIG. 20 shows, a space formed by the minor axes of the personal spaces of the users may be defined as the extended personal space. In the case of "two people" shown in FIG. 20”).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saeedi et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20230310995 “Saeedi”).
Regarding claim 10 Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang is silent about wherein the boundary of the personal space is computed using a machine learning algorithm trained by the target user's historical data comprising the instructions of the target user to control dimensions of the personal space under various situations.
Saeedi teaches boundary of the personal space is computed using a machine learning algorithm trained by the target user's historical data comprising the instructions of the target user to control dimension of the personal space under various situations (Col 9 lines 39-49 “In one implementation, the first and second machine learning engines generate the first and second movement schemes, respectively, that are based on respecting multiple measures of personal space associated with multiple agents operating within the video game. For example, a first measure of personal space is used to define region 620 shown encompassing player 605, with region 620 being a circle having a radius equal to the first measure of personal space. Alternatively, in another implementation, region 620 could be defined as other shapes having dimensions that are based at least in part on the first measure of personal space”);
Saeedi and Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang by computing boundary of the personal space using a machine learning algorithm trained by the target user's historical data comprising the instructions of the target user to control dimensions of the personal space under various situations as taught by Saeedi.
The motivation for the above is to automate the process of generating personal space.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bender et al. (US Patent No. 10943477 “Bender”).
Regarding claim 11 Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang teaches, further comprising the step of activating the personal space when a peer user's avatar approaches the target user within a predetermined distance (Bhogal “[0038] Illustrative but not exhaustive protocol protective actions or restrictions, for example an action taken at 110 of FIG. 1 as described above, include: transporting the protected avatar to a safe region or environment, for example transporting a child protected avatar 120 to a location within the VU beside or within a safe penumbra of a parent's avatar; providing a graphical indication 142 to the protected avatar 120 to illustrate and convey that the second avatar 130 is within a certain proximate distance or radius value; notifying a third party (e.g. a parent) of an implemented protocol rule violation or other trigger; preventing either of the protected avatar 120 or the second avatar 130 from being with a specified distance or radius defined by the exclusion zone 122 of the other of the protected avatar 120 and the second avatar 130”) but is silent about above a threshold speed;
Bender teaches activating personal space when another user approaches target user above a threshold speeds the target user above a threshold speed (Bender Col 10 lines 10-17 “n aspects, the central server begins recording the driving event data of the vehicle 66 after an initiating event has occurred, such as the vehicle reaching a predetermined threshold speed. At step 305, the central server 60 determines one or more safety zones for one or more participants based on the safety data received at steps 302 and 303 of FIG. 3”);
Bender and Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow by activating the personal space when a peer user's avatar approaches the target user above a threshold speed similar to activating personal space when another user approaches target user above a threshold speeds the target user above a threshold speed as taught by Bender.
The motivation for the above is to dynamically defining a safety zone for a user (Bender Col 1 line 7).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olmstead et al. (US Patent No. 10032450 “Olmstead”).
Regarding claim 12 Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang is silent about increasing the relationship score when a positive social interaction happens between the target user and the peer user; and reducing the relationship score when a negative social interaction happens between the target user and the peer user.
Olmstead teaches increasing relationship score when a positive social interaction happens between target user and peer user; and reducing the relationship score when a negative social interaction happens between the target user and the peer user (Col 12 lines 63- Col 13 lines 8 “At 510, the machine learning server 204 updates the relationship score between contacts (sender and recipient pair or another entity referred to in the electronic communication) to indicate a stronger relationship (e.g. increased strength) between contacts. The update may be an increase to the relationship score. The stronger relationship may be based on an informal classification or good sentiment classification, for example.
At 512, the machine learning server 204 updates the relationship score between contacts (sender and recipient pair) to indicate a weaker relationship between contacts (e.g. increased strength). The update may be to decrease the relationship score”).
Olmstead and Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow and Zhang are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow by increasing relationship score when a positive social interaction happens between target user and peer user; and reducing the relationship score when a negative social interaction happens between the target user and the peer user as taught by Olmstead.
The motivation for the above is to numerically represent the relationship for easy understanding.
Bhogal modified by Sakata, Garbow, Zhang and Olmstead teaches applying rules to the peer user to restrict his/her interactions with the target user (Bhogal “[0032] In some embodiments, the protected avatar 120 seeking protection from the second avatar 130 may also directly initiate or engage the services of a VU provider or another third party services provider, who may offer a protection service that protects the protected avatar 120 from the second avatar 130 in exchange for compensation. In some examples, the protection service or the VU provider may restrict the second avatar 130 from interacting with the protected avatar 120, and the protected avatar 120 may also be (optionally) restricted from interacting with the second avatar 130”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 6, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pages 6-7, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 113 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20100081508 “Bhogal”) in view of Sakata et al. (US Patent No. 8326456 “Sakata”), Garbow et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20090174702 “Garbow”) and Zhang et al. (US Pat. No. 10346477 “Zhang”).
Applicant argues, see remarks page 7, “For example, claim 1 recites, among other things, "determining that the target user has a hostile relationship with the peer user based on the biometric parameter" and "subtracting a personal space of the peer user from the personal space of the target user." However, Bhogal, Sakata, and Garbow do not appear to disclose, teach, or suggest at least these elements.”
Examiner replies, Garbow teaches determining a biometric parameter of the target user , See ABSTRACT “ The inappropriate interactions may be detected by examining characteristics of the interactions between a child and another user (e.g., communications, transactions, etc.), by monitoring physical signs of stress in the child (e.g., based on facial gestures, heart rate, etc.)”.
Garbow also teaches, determining that the target user has a hostile relationship with the peer user based on the biometric parameter. See Garbow ABSTRACT “ The inappropriate interactions may be detected by examining characteristics of the interactions between a child and another user (e.g., communications, transactions, etc.), by monitoring physical signs of stress in the child (e.g., based on facial gestures, heart rate, etc.) [0017] However, some problems of interacting in the physical world may also occur in the virtual world. In particular, child users (e.g., users below the age of 18 years) of a virtual world may be subject to inappropriate interactions with other users. Such inappropriate interactions may include bullying, stalking, exploitation, fraud, intimidation, and sexual harassment”.
Zhang teaches subtracting intersection from two spaces. See Zhang, Col 13 lines 37-41 “compute the domain region for the retrieved interest point; (3) determine whether there is an intersection between the domain region and the candidate safe region; and (4) if there is an intersection, compute it; refine the candidate safe region by re-defining it as the intersection subtracted from the candidate safe region”.
Examiner proposed to modify Bhogal as modified by Sakata and Garbow by subtracting a personal space of the peer user from the personal space of the target user similar to subtracting intersection from two spaces as taught by Zhang. The motivation for the above is to create a safe and restricted environment for the target user.
Applicant argues, see remarks Page 7, regarding Zhang reference, “On page 13, the Office Action suggests that Zhang teaches subtracting personal spaces of two target users, when one of the target users has a hostile relationship score with the peer user, so that the peer user cannot access the intersection of the personal spaces. Zhang relates to reducing the number of queries made for a location service. The Zhang "safe region" is unrelated to the safety of a user. As indicated in claim 1 of Zhang "the safe region being an area surrounding the query point location such that for each interest point contained in the safe region, the set of interest points within the radius from the query point is the same." In other words, the Zhang safe region relates to regions in which the number of location queries can be reduced. This is different than the present claims, which relate to a user's personal space in a virtual environment.’
Examiner replies, Zhang’s personal space or safe region is a user’s personal space in a virtual environment. See Zhang, Column 4 Lines 6-10: “A query point q can be a tuple of coordinates and can represent an object in physical or virtual multidimensional space, for example: a person, an animal, a car, a plane, a smartphone, or a drone.” Therefore applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
There is argument for claim 9 but claim 9 is cancelled.
In response to applicant’s argument for the dependent claims 10-12, see remarks Pages 8-9, examiner refers applicant to the reply above for independent claim as there is no additional arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612