DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications: Amendment filed October 10, 2025.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20 and 22 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 3, 5, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 have been newly amended. Claims 2, 13, 21, and 23 have been newly cancelled. No claims have been newly added. This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 15-17 are 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 9 recites, “…controlling, by the processor, actions of a plurality of the avatars respectively corresponding to a plurality of the users in the virtual space in response to operations of the plurality of users…where the interface is operated by each of actions of two or more avatars different from each other among the plurality of avatars…” where claim 9 depends upon independent claim 1 which has been amended to recite, “…controlling, by the processor, actions of a plurality of the avatars respectively corresponding to a plurality of the users in the virtual space in response to operations of the plurality of users…” (a redundant limitation), where claim 9 now introduces additional “a plurality of the avatars” and “a plurality of the users,” but fails to distinctly point out if and how each of “a plurality of the avatars” and “a plurality of the users” differ from “a plurality of the avatars” and “a plurality of the users” as defined in claim 1. Additionally, because of this lack of distinction, claim 9 further fails to distinctly point out as to which “the plurality of the users” and “the plurality of avatars” are being referred. It is suggested to omit the entire limitation “…controlling, by the processor, actions of a plurality of the avatars respectively corresponding to a plurality of the users in the virtual space in response to operations of the plurality of users…” from claim 9 to overcome the issues as outlined.
Claim 15 also recites, “…controlling, by the processor, actions of a plurality of the avatars respectively corresponding to a plurality of the users in the virtual space in response to operations of the plurality of users…among the plurality of avatars…among the plurality of avatars…” where claim 15 depends upon independent claim 1 which has been amended to recite, “…controlling, by the processor, actions of a plurality of the avatars respectively corresponding to a plurality of the users in the virtual space in response to operations of the plurality of users…” (a redundant limitation), where claim 15 now introduces additional “a plurality of the avatars” and “a plurality of the users,” but fails to distinctly point out if and how each of “a plurality of the avatars” and “a plurality of the users” differ from “a plurality of the avatars” and “a plurality of the users” as defined in claim 1. Additionally, because of this lack of distinction, claim 15 further fails to distinctly point out as to which “the plurality of avatars” are being referred. It is suggested to omit the entire limitation “…controlling, by the processor, actions of a plurality of the avatars respectively corresponding to a plurality of the users in the virtual space in response to operations of the plurality of users…” from claim 15 to overcome the issues as outlined.
Claim 15 further recites, “…setting, by the processor, a product object identical to any of the duplicate objects as a target of the customization…” where claim 15 depends upon independent claim 1 which recites, “…setting, as a target of the customization…” where claim 15 introduces an additional “target of the customization,” but fails to distinctly point out if and how each “target of the customization” differ.
Claim 16 also recites, “…setting, by the processor, a product object identical to any of the duplicate objects as a target of the customization…” where claim 15 depends upon independent claim 1 which recites, “…setting, as a target of the customization…” where claim 16 introduces an additional “target of the customization,” but fails to
distinctly point out if and how each “target of the customization” differ.
Dependent claim 17 is rejected for depending upon rejected claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14, 18-20 and 22 are allowed.
Claims 9 and 15-17 would be allowable if the 122(b) rejection may be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The present invention relates to a system and method of controlling one or more avatars for product customization. The prior art of record discloses certain features of the claimed invention as outlined in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 10, 2025. However, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, singly or combined, the limitations of independent claims 1, 20, and 22 as now amended. A Notice of Allowance cannot be made since ALL claims are not in condition for allowance as outlined above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed October 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejection 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 in view of the amendments of independent claims 1, 20, and 22. Dependent claims 9 and 15-17 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Because all claims are not allowable, a Notice of Allowance cannot be issued. Multiple calls were made to handling attorney Chao Wei Chung and voice messages were left on January 6-8, 2026 to correct the 112(b) issues and expedite prosecution. However, as the date of submission of this Final Office Action, no response has been received.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACINTA M CRAWFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1539. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m.
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, King Y. Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/JACINTA M CRAWFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617