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 .
The Examiner notes the applicants’ assertion that a “computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se” as stated in paragraph 19 of the specification as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canney, US 2024/0177196 A1, in view of Chalmers, US 12,400,025 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Canney teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: providing a virtual room in a virtual environment (paragraph 29: “The metaverse server 120 can be one or more computing devices that generate and manage one more virtual environments”),
monitoring a context associated with the virtual room (paragraph 32: “The analytics system 115 can be one or more computing devices communicatively linked with the metaverse server 120 for capturing observation information 155 and determining contextual information”);
determining that the context of the virtual room meets at least one condition (paragraph 51: “Some embodiments map the contextual information to the contextual segments using predefined rules”. The rules representative of the at least one condition);
deploying at least one virtual camera for monitoring the content in the virtual room, in response to determining that the context of the virtual room meets the at least one condition (paragraph 24: “The observer avatar can capture, for example, audio, video, images, and text perceived by the observer avatar in the area of the user avatar, along with metadata describing the captured information”. The observation avatar representative of the virtual camera);
Canney may not have taught the following, however, Chalmers shows:
a content in the virtual room initially being excluded from monitoring (C1, L44-45: “a method is provided for providing privacy and protection within a metaverse”. That is no monitoring);
and alerting participants in the virtual room that monitoring is occurring in the virtual room (C15, L29-36: “the presently disclosed techniques may provide for the use of alerts or other notifications to provide a user 16 or visitor to a metaverse 12 with an indication of proximity (i.e., within the virtual space or area) to one or more specified conditions or actors. For example, a notification or alert may be provided if a user 16 enters an interaction or inspection proximity to another user or visitor determined to be a known or problem “bad” actor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teachings of Chalmers with that of Canney for initially excluding monitoring of a content in the virtual room and alerting participants in the virtual room that monitoring is occurring in the virtual room.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Canney in the manner set forth above for the purposes of managing or providing privacy in metaverses and/or to providing protection of a user within metaverses [Chalmers: Abstract].
Regarding Claim 2, Chalmers further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein monitoring the context associated with the virtual room comprises analyzing data communicated to and from the virtual room to determine that the at least one condition is met (C6, L56-64: “In response to receiving data relating to detected activity 22 of a user 16 from one or more computing devices 20, metaverse servers 14, and/or external data sources 42, the metaverse user privacy and protection system 26 may utilize a metaverse user privacy and protection application 44 to analyze the data relating to the detected activity 22 to automatically implement or otherwise apply protection and/or privacy protocols with respect to the user 16 and other users 16 or entities of the particular metaverses”).
Regarding Claim 3, Chalmers further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein monitoring the context associated with the virtual room comprises analyzing a number of the participants entering the virtual room to determine that the at least one condition is met (C8, L27-33: “In addition, in certain embodiments, the data relating to the monitored activity 22 of the user 16 may include external data from the external data sources 42 relating to other users 16 within the metaverse 12 (e.g., prior reported antisocial or criminal conduct), entities within the metaverse 12 (e.g., fraudulent or fake entities, and so forth), or locations within the metaverse”).
Regarding Claim 4, Chalmers further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein monitoring the context associated with the virtual room comprises analyzing user profiles of the participants entering the virtual room to determine that the at least one condition is met (C8, L27-33: “In addition, in certain embodiments, the data relating to the monitored activity 22 of the user 16 may include external data from the external data sources 42 relating to other users 16 within the metaverse 12 (e.g., prior reported antisocial or criminal conduct), entities within the metaverse 12 (e.g., fraudulent or fake entities, and so forth), or locations within the metaverse”).
Regarding Claim 5, Canney further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one virtual camera is deployed at various locations in the virtual room to monitor the content based on a view of the at least one virtual camera at the various locations (paragraph 46: “The observation information can include images, video, and audio perceivable by the observer avatar in the virtual environment. The viewpoint of the monitoring can be established from a view observing the target avatar (e.g., a second person view); from substantially the same view of as the target avatar (e.g., a first person view), and a 360 degree view surrounding the target avatar (e.g., a bird's eye view)”).
Regarding Claim 6, Chalmers further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the content monitored in the virtual room is used to determine that an action is to be performed to stop a security violation (C1, L50-55 : A determination is made, via the metaverse privacy and protection system, whether the one or more attempted interactions are permitted by the privacy and protection protocols. Based on a determination that the one or more attempted interactions are not permitted, the attempted interaction is prevented”).
Regarding Claim 7, Chalmers further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the virtual room is a confidential virtual room that is provided according to a policy for not monitoring the content in the virtual room (C4, L22-28: “in certain embodiments, a metaverse user privacy system may be used to prevent or discourage user data or private information from being compromised, such as due to the interactions in which such data might be requested or exchanged. Such limitations or prohibitions may be applied or enforced based on various factors, such as privacy or security settings specified by a user or for the user”);
and monitoring the context associated with the virtual room is performed without initially monitoring in the virtual room and without entering the virtual room (C8, L28-34: “the data relating to the monitored activity 22 of the user 16 may include external data from the external data sources 42 relating to other users 16 within the metaverse 12 (e.g., prior reported antisocial or criminal conduct), entities within the metaverse 12 (e.g., fraudulent or fake entities, and so forth), or locations within the metaverse 12 (e.g., problematic or fake storefronts, and so forth)”. The external data representative of context data obtained without entering the virtual room).
Claims 8-14 are similar to Claims 1-7 and are rejected under the same rationale as stated above for those claims.
Claims 15-20 are similar to Claims 1-6 and are rejected under the same rationale as stated above for those claims.
Examiner's Note:
The Examiner cites particular pages, sections, columns, line numbers, and/or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner and the additional related prior arts made of record that are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure to further show the general state of the art. The Examiner's interpretations in parenthesis are provided with the cited references to assist the applicants to better understand how the examiner interprets the prior art to read on the claims. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for the relevant prior art where for example Canney, US 2024/0177196 A1, teaches determining contextual segments for targeting contextual advertising in metaverses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVE MISIR whose telephone number is (571)272-5243. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8-5 pm, F some hours.
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, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached at 5712703169. 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.
/DAVE MISIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights