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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites “when the personal space overlaps a route in the virtual environment, the avatar of the peer user passes through the personal space while being faded from view of the target user”. Applicant doesn’t have support for this.
The closest support available “[0089] Alternatively, those peer users without sufficiently high relationship level will be faded out of view of the target user when they are passing through the personal space. This prevents griefing with a personal space whilst also still protecting a user who is innocently (if thoughtlessly or ineptly) blocking a route”. This paragraph doesn’t have any overlapping condition.
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 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites “subtracting personal spaces of a first target user and a second target user when one of the first target user and the second target user has a hostile relationship score with the peer user, such that the peer user cannot access an intersection of the personal spaces”. The underlined portion is indefinite as subtraction needs two operands. But this portion has only one.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “monitoring the target user's stress level based on biometric parameter; and increasing the boundary of the personal space when the stress level increase”. But similar limitations are recited in claim 1. So claim 5 doesn’t limit independent claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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”) and Garbow et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20090174702 “Garbow”).
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; monitoring a stress level of a target user based on biometric parameter;
Garbow teaches determining a biometric parameter of the target user; monitoring a stress level of a target user 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.)”);
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 monitoring a stress level of a target user based on 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 teaches updating the boundary of the personal space such that the boundary increases 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”);
detecting an avatar of the peer user approaching 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow teaches monitoring target user's stress level based on 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.)”.
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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 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 modified by Sakata and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 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 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 and Garbow 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 and Garbow 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 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 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 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”).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Queck et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20110099608 “Queck”).
Regarding claim 16 Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow teaches displaying, when the avatar of the peer user approaches the updated boundary, a message to the target user (Bhogal “[0038]…… 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”) but is silent about message to the target user requesting permission for the avatar of the peer user to enter the personal space.
Queck teaches message to the target user requesting permission for the avatar of the peer user to enter the personal space (“[0056]……The owner of a personal space may utilize different methods to control access to the space. At 902, avatar B 910 approaches the personal space belonging to avatar A 901. The initial communication to gain access to the space begins here. There may be one or more responses returned by avatar A. Avatar B 910 may be granted access to an active object 911 if avatar A 901 grants avatar B 910 permission to enter personal space 902”);
Queck 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 modified by Sakata and Garbow by providing a message to the target user requesting permission for the avatar of the peer user to enter the personal space as taught by Queck.
The motivation is to provide control to the target user to manage his personal space.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pejsa et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210350604 “Pejsa”).
Regarding claim 17 Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow is silent about wherein, when the personal space overlaps a route in the virtual environment, the avatar of the peer user passes through the personal space while being faded from view of the target user.
Pejsa teaches when personal space overlaps a route in the virtual environment, avatar of peer user passes through the personal space while being faded from view of the target user (“[0246]……. display, on a display of the computing device of a first user in a first environment, a second avatar of a second user in a second environment, wherein the first and second environments are part of a shared collaboration environment; register with a colocation service for colocation event data indicative of when the first user and second user are colocated; in response to receiving colocation event data indicating that the first user and second user are colocated, initiating one or more audiovisual transitions to the second avatar including at least fading of the second avatar”. Here collocated means second user/peer user is in the personal space of first user);
Pejsa 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 having, when personal space overlaps a route in the virtual environment, avatar of peer user passes through the personal space while being faded from view of the target user as taught by Pejsa.
The motivation for the above is to reduce the importance of peer avatar.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Pat. No. 10346477 “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 18 Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow is silent about subtracting personal spaces of a first target user and a second target user when one of the first target user and the second target user has a hostile relationship score with the peer user, such that the peer user cannot access an intersection of the personal spaces.
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”) and
Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow teaches changing size of the personal space when one of the first target user and the second target user has a hostile relationship score with the peer user, such that the peer user cannot access an intersection of the personal spaces (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”);
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 personal spaces of a first target user and a second target user when one of the first target user and the second target user has a hostile relationship score with the peer user, such that the peer user cannot access an intersection of the personal spaces based on the teaching of subtracting intersection from two spaces as taught by Zhang and use this teaching when Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow changes size of the personal space when one of the first target user and the second target user has a hostile relationship score with the peer user, such that the peer user cannot access an intersection of the personal spaces.
The motivation for the above is to create a safe and restricted environment for the target user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 7, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pages 7-9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues see remarks page 8 “The Office Action (pp. 4-5 and 8-9) alleges that Bhogal, 11 0002, 0030, 0033 and 0037- 0038, teaches……Even supposing, arguendo, that Bhogal's "exclusion zone 122" and "proximity threshold violation" can be construed as a personal space and approach detection, Bhogal does not appear to describe determining a biometric parameter of the target user, monitoring a stress level based on that biometric parameter, or increasing the boundary of the personal space when the stress level increases”.
Examiner wants to note that argued limitation of determining biometric parameter and monitoring stress level is shown from Garbow. 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.)”.
Applicant argues see remarks page 8 “The Office Action (pp. 5-6) alleges that Sakata, col. 19:48-49 and 19:51-52,……….Sakata does not appear to describe determining a biometric parameter of the target user and monitoring a stress level of the target user based on that biometric parameter in a multi-user virtual environment having avatars of a target user and a peer user”.
Examiner wants to note that argued limitation of determining biometric parameter and monitoring stress level is shown from Garbow. 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.)”.
Applicant argues see remarks page 9 “The Office Action (p. 6) alleges that Garbow, 1 0017…….Garbow does not appear to describe a personal space boundary computed based on a relationship score with a peer user, or updating that boundary so that it increases when the stress level increases”.
Examiner wants to note that Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow teaches argued limitation.
After including Garbow’s teaching of determining biometric parameter and monitoring stress level,with Bhogal, 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”.
Applicant argues see remarks page 9 “The Office Action (pp. 7-8) alleges that Zhang, col. 13:37-41, teaches boundary updating, but at most, Zhang describes "refin[ing] the candidate safe region by re-defining it as the intersection subtracted from the candidate safe region."……Zhang does not appear to describe a personal space around an avatar in a multi-user virtual environment, a biometric parameter of a target user, a stress level monitored from that biometric parameter, or a boundary that increases when the stress level increases”.
Examiner want to note that Zhang’s teaching of subtracting intersection from two spaces is included with Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow. The argued limitation is taught by Bhogal modified by Sakata and Garbow.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights