DETAILED ACTION
The present application (Application No. 18/504,702), filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in reply to filing dated 08 November, 2023.
Priority
This application claims priority of Japan Application No. 2022-185231, filed on Nov. 18, 2022. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of these prior filed applications is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, are pending and addressed below.
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.
Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In the instant case, claims 9-16, are directed to a method, claims 1-8, are directed to an apparatus, and claims 17-20 are directed to a product, therefore the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Independent claim 9 comprises steps of: acquiring modification information being information related to modification of an avatar; estimating psychographic data of a user of the avatar, based on the acquired modification information; and outputting the estimated psychographic data.
Independent claims 1 and 17, recite substantially similar subject matter and the same subsequent analysis should be applied thereto.
The independent claims are directed to a method for modifying an avatar according to the psychological state or preferences of a user (a human) and using a processor to display the particular avatar as it appears following or as a result of this modification. Accordingly, the claimed steps represent a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and likewise represent a method of organizing commercial interactions comprising behaviors and/or advertising, marketing and sales activities.
Although an avatar is a digital construct object that exists in a virtual world environment and requires a virtual world environment to be created and displayed, these claimed steps are merely steps of collecting/tracking data (transmitting, receiving, storing, gathering), analyzing data, making determinations/correlations/comparisons, and displaying/presenting data. All these steps, but for the use of generic computer processor components that execute them, are generic functions performed by general-purpose computers, which relate to concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions. The examiner notes that any avatar creating and animating functionality is outside the scope of the claims.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Additional elements include: an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent generic functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any novel programming or improvement in the operation of the computer itself. These additional elements are merely invoked as tools to perform an abstract idea (mere instructions to apply the exception) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements when the claim elements are viewed individually and as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Based on the reasoning provided under Step 2A- Prong 2, the claims under Step 2B do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. In addition, there has been no characterization of any additional element representative of insignificant extra-solution activity which needed to be reevaluated under Step 2B. At this point, either under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping scenario where all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract ideas, or if viewed under the “Mental Processes” grouping scenario, the analysis is terminated because the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. That is, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent conventional functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any improvement to the programming technique or improvement in the operation of the computer itself.
The dependent claims have been considered. The dependent claims further limit the “modification”. In other words, these dependent claims only just generally add limits to one or more of: collecting/tracking data, analyzing data, making determinations/correlations, and/or displaying/presenting data. When considered as a whole, the same analysis indicating failure to link the claimed steps to a technology improvement with respect to Step 2A Prong Two and step 2B, also applies to these dependent claims’ additional elements. These dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea, and therefore, the improvement or innovation represented by the additional elements of these dependent claims is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13, 16, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyle et al. (US 2007/0167204) (hereinafter “Lyle7204”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17, Lyle7204 discloses:
(acquire modification information being information related to modification of an avatar).
(estimate psychographic data of a user of the avatar, based on the acquired modification information).
(output the estimated psychographic data).
Using the avatar, as play of the game proceeds the player's avatar begins as a character appearing like themselves and gradually becomes a character that is more as they would like to appear. The avatar increases the emotional impact of games by providing strong visual and psychological connections with the player. The avatar may instead begin from an initial character that does not appear similar to the player. The iterations may make the avatar gradually less appealing or with other changes in appearance, in some embodiments. (see at least Lyle7204, abstract; see also fig. 1-3, ¶32, 34, 40-41, 44-45).
The user or player is subjected to psychological testing, such as answering questions or filling out a survey as shown at 22, to determine the physical or appearance characteristics which are desirable to this user. (see at least Lyle7204, ¶40). The physical appearance of the initial avatar changes to reflect the psychological desires of the player or user (see at least Lyle7204, ¶41). The user may use the system tools to modify or otherwise enhance the profile of the user (see at least Lyle7204, fig. 1-3, ¶34),
Since psychological testing and desires of the player and interaction data of the avatar in the VW (estimated psychographic data) are used to change or modify the avatar appearance of the initial avatar, then the estimated psychographic data is indeed output.
(information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor). System comprising computing devices, processors, servers, memory, computer readable media, interfaces, modules and software instructions stored in memory that enable the system to execute the steps of the method over network communications and to enable interaction between participants and the system (see at least Lyle7204, fig. 1-2, ¶34-40)
Regarding claims 2, 10, 18, Lyle7204 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 9; and claim 17; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Lyle7204 discloses: (wherein the modification information includes information indicating whether there is a modification for each component of the avatar). (see at least Lyle7204, fig. 3, ¶41).
The final avatar 120 also includes arms 124 which have added muscle tone as compared to initial arms 112, a chest 126 with added muscle tone as compared to the initial chest 126, a back 128 with improved posture and a thin waist area as compared to the initial back 116, and an abdomen 130 with added muscle tone and a thin waist area as compared to the initial abdomen 118. (see at least Lyle7204, 3, ¶42)
Regarding claims 5, 13, Lyle7204 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; and claim 9; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Lyle7204 discloses: (wherein the modification information includes information indicating a feature determined from a component before modification of the avatar or a feature determined from a component after modification of the avatar). Modifications of an avatar take place as the avatars interactions in the virtual world (VW) take place Using the avatar, as play of the game proceeds the player's avatar begins as a character appearing like themselves and gradually becomes a character that is more as they would like to appear. The avatar increases the emotional impact of games by providing strong visual and psychological connections with the player. The avatar may instead begin from an initial character that does not appear similar to the player. The iterations may make the avatar gradually less appealing or with other changes in appearance, in some embodiments. (see at least Lyle7204, abstract; see also fig. 1-3, ¶32, 34, 40-41, 44-45).
Regarding claims 8, 16, Lyle7204 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; and claim 9; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Lyle7204 further discloses: (wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select a product or a service to be recommended to a user of the avatar by using the estimated psychographic data). Advertisements for products and/or services representative of recommendations (see at least Lyle7204, ¶55, 77).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3, 11, 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle et al. (US 2007/0167204) (hereinafter “Lyle7204”) in view of Ronen et al. (US 20060294465) (hereinafter “Ronen4465”).
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19, Lyle7204 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 9; and claim 17; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
As previously indicated, Lyle7204 discloses: modification for each component of the avatar) (see at least Lyle7204, fig. 3, ¶41-42).
Lyle7204 does not disclose: (wherein the modification information includes information indicating the number of times of modification for each component of the avatar).
However, Ronen4465 discloses: A method and system for creating mobile avatars, customizing or personalizing mobile avatars and distributing mobile avatars including real-time updates thereof across a wireless network. A mobile avatar of a service subscriber is stored in mobile clients across the wireless network, and the mobile avatar is retrieved from the mobile clients and displayed upon receipt of a call from the service subscriber. (see at least Ronen4465, abstract). In particular Ronen4465 discloses: The mobile avatar 9d of the user is also associated with a version number (information indicating the number of times of modification for each component of the avatar) 25 that indicates any changes to the mobile avatar 9d. (see at least Ronen4465, fig. 9, ¶72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lyle7204 with Ronen4465 , since this would be a simple substitution of one known avatar modification element (i.e. using version identifiers to keep track of avatar modifications as taught by Ronen4465) for another (i.e. the avatar modification teaching of Lyle7204), to obtain the predictable result of facilitating keeping track of avatar changes thereby enhancing the analytical capability of the system.
Claims 4, 12, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle et al. (US 2007/0167204) (hereinafter “Lyle7204”) in view of Shriram et al. (US 2022/0230379) (hereinafter “Shriram0379”).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 20, Lyle7204 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 9; and claim 17; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
As previously indicated, Lyle7204 discloses: Avatar modifications
Lyle7204 does not disclose: (wherein the modification information includes information indicating magnitude of a difference between a component before modification of the avatar and a component after modification of the avatar).
However, Shriram0379 discloses: An augmented reality (AR) application enables customization and manipulation of three dimensional (3D) avatars on a mobile client. The application provides a variety of options for modifying the physical appearance of an avatar, including base features such as skin tone and body shape. When a user adjusts these base features, application may make corresponding adjustments to part features (e.g., clothing items) that are displayed over the base features. (see at least Shriram0379, abstract).
In particular, Shriram0379 discloses: The avatar customization application 130 enables customized avatar generation, animation, and cutscenes. For example, the user can select physical features to correspond with their avatar's body (e.g., weight, height, skin tone, hair color, eye color, scars, birthmarks, etc.) for display in the AR game (e.g., during gameplay or cutscenes). In some embodiments, the user can select from a continuous scale of colors or numbers to change the avatar's physical appearance. For example, the user selects form a continuous scale of number values corresponding to the width of the avatar's hips.. (see at least Shriram0379, fig. 1, ¶32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lyle7204 with Shriram0379 , since “this avatar customization application 130 enables optimized shading for reduced memory consumption, reduced processing resource consumption, and dynamic generation of special effects” (see Shriram0379, fig. 1, ¶32).
Claims 6-7, 14-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle et al. (US 2007/0167204) (hereinafter “Lyle7204”) in view of Meadows et al. (US 2023/0090253) (hereinafter “Meadows0253”).
Regarding claims 6, 14, Lyle7204 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; and claim 9; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
As previously indicated, Lyle7204 discloses: Specific modifications to avatar parts (see at least Lyle7204, fig. 3, ¶41-42).
Lyle7204 does not disclose: (wherein the modification information includes information indicating a modification time for each component of the avatar).
However, Meadows0253 discloses: The administrative system, either automatically or manually, may identify the activity, behavior, change or other asset (avatar, object, architecture, function, or other system component) by UUID, visual selection, timestamp (a modification time), or other means. The change and editing system may then identify the target state (or set of characteristics) as a numeric comparison to current state. Finally, a recommendation is offered by system to administrator. (see at least Meadows0253, ¶395).
Lyle7204 and Meadows0253, they both teach a “comparable” “base” method (device, method or product) for modifying avatars and for keeping track of these modifications; wherein Meadows0253 further teaches the improvement of associating a timestamp to any avatar changes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expand the specific feature of Lyle7204 of making modifications to avatar parts, to include the above timestamp modification feature of Meadows0253; since this expansion is applying a known technique of associating a timestamp to avatar changes, to improve a similar known technique of modifying avatars and keeping track of these modifications, in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable tracking result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7, 15, Lyle7204 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; and claim 9; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Lyle7204 discloses: Executing avatar changes by comparing avatar part features (see at least Lyle7204, fig. 3, ¶41-42), but it could be argued it does specifically not disclose: (wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire the modification information by comparing the avatar at a first time point with the avatar at a second time point after the first time point).
The final avatar 98 also includes a nose 102 in which the bump has been removed and the tip rounded out as compared to the initial nose 92, lips 104 in which the appearance of the lips are more symmetrical and fuller as compared to the initial lips 94, and a chin 106 in which the appearance is squared as compared to the initial chin 96. (see at least Lyle7204, fig. 3, ¶41).
The final avatar 120 also includes arms 124 which have added muscle tone as compared to initial arms 112, a chest 126 with added muscle tone as compared to the initial chest 126, a back 128 with improved posture and a thin waist area as compared to the initial back 116, and an abdomen 130 with added muscle tone and a thin waist area as compared to the initial abdomen 118 (see at least Lyle7204, fig. 3, ¶42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further include the comparing feature of Lyle7204 in the Lyle7204/ Meadows0253 combination formulated in the rejections of claim 6 and clam 14, since this added comparing feature would further improve the above mentioned similar known technique of modifying avatars and keeping time tabs on (track) these modifications, in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable tracking result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2006030482 Nishimura; US9026458 Blatchley; US20090063283 Kusumoto.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO IOSIF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Wednesday, 9:00am-4:00pm teleworking.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on 571-270-39485491. 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.
/Mario C. Iosif/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621