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 .
Status of the Application
This non-final office action is in response to the communication filed on 4/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the limitations “monitoring a first behavior of a first avatar in a first metaverse environment, the first avatar being controlled by a particular user” and “monitoring a second behavior of a second avatar in a second metaverse environment, the first avatar being controlled by the same particular user.” Examiner notes that both limitations recite that the first avatar is controlled by the same particular user. In view of the context of the second limitation receiting a second avatar in a second metaverse environment, it appears that the second limitation likely erroneously states “the first avatar being controlled by the same particular user” and was intended to recite “the second avatar being controlled by the same particular user.” Therefore it is unclear which avatar the second limitation refers to. For purposes of applying prior art, Examiner will interpret the second limitation as referring to the second avatar, as stating that the first avatar is controlled by the same user as the first avatar does not further limit the claim in any way.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, Claim 9 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
monitoring a first behavior of a first avatar in a first environment;
based on the first behavior of the first avatar in the first environment, generating a first
environment-specific profile corresponding to the first environment for the particular user;
monitoring a second behavior of a second avatar in a second environment;
based on the second behavior of the second avatar in the second environment, generating a second environment-specific profile corresponding to the second environment for the particular user, wherein the second environment-specific profile for the particular user is different than the first environment-specific profile for the particular user;
based on at least one of the first environment-specific profile and the second environment-specific profile, selecting the first environment for display of a first content item.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). That is, the limitations recited above describe the process of monitoring user behavior in different environments, generating user profile(s) based on the monitored user behaviors in different environments, and displaying a content item to the user (i.e., advertising – see spec [0052]) in a first environment based on a user profile for the environment. This is an advertising activity that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of:
the first and second environments are metaverse environments.
the first avatar being controlled by a particular user and the first avatar being controlled by the same particular user;
[selecting display of a first content item] while the first avatar is within the first metaverse environment.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it); or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Specifically, specifying that the first and second environments are metaverse environments and that the first avatar being controlled by a particular user and the first avatar being controlled by the same particular user are recited at a high level of generality and merely apply the abstract idea in the context or the metaverse or merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a generic metaverse where users control avatars).
With respect to [selecting display of a first content item] while the first avatar is within the first metaverse environment, the limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., the metaverse) to display selected advertisements while the user is present in that environment.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it); generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent non-transitory computer readable media claim 1 and independent system claim 17 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 9. The additional limitations in claim 1 (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium) and the additional limitations in independent claim 17 (i.e., a device including a hardware processor) add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the components in independent claims 1 and 17 merely provide an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent claim 1, 9, and 17 without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. Specifically, the additional limitations in claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 merely further limit the abstract idea or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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 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 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 1, 4, 9, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120011002 (“Crowe”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20250245025 (“Gendreau”).
Claims 1, 9, and 17
As per claims 1, 9, and 17, Crowe teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations, a method, and a system comprising:
at least one device including a hardware processor ([0025] “non-transitory computer readable medium for storing a computer program executed by a processor.”);
the system being configured to perform operations comprising ([0038] “methods described herein are intended for operation as software programs running on a computer processor.”):
monitoring a first behavior of a first avatar in a first metaverse environment, the first avatar being controlled by a particular user ([0011] “each avatar is typically associated with and controlled by an end user device controlled by a particular participant.” And, [0019] “the virtual beings . . . in the virtual world are monitored for key words used to create context to select advertising data types to be presented to the avatars.” And, [0032] “End users response to advertising data types and current context in the virtual environment are monitored and stored in a data base for selecting advertisements based on an end user's past response in a particular context.”);
based on the first behavior of the first avatar in the first metaverse environment, generating a first environment-specific profile corresponding to the first metaverse environment for the particular user ([0019] “0019] “the virtual beings . . . in the virtual world are monitored.” And, [0032] “current context in the virtual environment are monitored.” And, [0020] “the first end user profile further includes but is not limited to response data for an advertising data type . . . indicating the first end user's preference for one of the advertising data types.” And, [0026] “profile data indicating the particular end user's response to a data type in the current context” where [0017] discloses “context of a player's activities is used as an “activity context.” And, [0019] “[t]he contexts are derived from the virtual beings monitored responses in interactions with the avatars.” Examiner interprets the interactions/activities of the avatar in the current context in the virtual environment as behavior of the first avatar in the first metaverse environment.);
monitoring a second behavior of a second avatar in a second metaverse environment ([0020] “a second avatar's view of the virtual world.” And, [0011] “each avatar is typically associated with and controlled by an end user device controlled by a particular participant.” And, [0019] “the virtual beings . . . in the virtual world are monitored for key words used to create context to select advertising data types to be presented to the avatars.”);
based on the second behavior of the second avatar in the second metaverse environment, generating a second environment-specific profile corresponding to the second metaverse environment, wherein the second environment-specific profile is different than the first environment-specific profile for the particular user (([0032] “current context in the virtual environment are monitored.” And, [0020] “a second end user profile for a second end user associated with the second avatar.” And, [0026] “profile data indicating the particular end user's response to a data type in the current context” where [0017] discloses “context of a player's activities is used as an “activity context.” And, [0019] “[t]he contexts are derived from the virtual beings monitored responses in interactions with the avatars.”);
based on at least one of the first environment-specific profile and the second environment specific profile, selecting the first metaverse environment for display of a first content item while the first avatar is within the first metaverse environment ([0019] “The contexts are derived from the virtual beings monitored responses in interactions with the avatars and interactions are used to select key words for targeted advertisements to be presented to each avatar in the virtual world.” And, [0021] “selecting key words . . . to select advertising to present to the first and second avatars.” And, [0020] “the first advertisement is based on a first end user profile for a first end user associated with the first avatar and the second version of advertisement is based on a second end user profile for a second end user associated with the second avatar.”).
Crowe teaches first and second end user profiles associated with first and second avatars respectively but Crowe does not explicitly the following features taught by Gendreau:
the first avatar being controlled by the same particular user ([0010] “move from one metaverse or virtual experience to another.” And, [0053] “identified user has at least an avatar and profile on a first virtual environment and at least a profile on a second virtual environment.” And, [0067] “For example, if an avatar in the first virtual platform is depicted as a person wearing clothing or accessories that suggest the person is a sports fan, but the second virtual environment is labelled as a semi-formal space, the system may automatically update the avatar by removing the sports-related accessories and depicting the same (or similar) person as wearing semi-formal clothing.” Examiner notes that the same user controls the avatar in each environment.).
Crowe does not explicitly teach but Gendreau teaches:
[a second environment-specific profile corresponding to the second metaverse environment] for the particular user and [wherein the second environment-specific profile for the particular user is different than the first environment-specific profile] for the particular user ([0003] “the guest avatar for each user of the cluster of users based on a theme of the second virtual environment; and generating, by the processor set, a new profile prefilled with data collected from previous virtual environments that contain a subset of profile data required for the second virtual environment.” Examiner interprets the new profile for the second virtual environment as the second environment specific profile and notes that the first and second profiles are for the same particular user.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Crowe to include the first avatar being controlled by the same particular user and [a second environment-specific profile corresponding to the second metaverse environment] for the particular user and [wherein the second environment-specific profile for the particular user is different than the first environment-specific profile] for the particular user as taught by Gendreau in order to “allow[] the user to maintain multiple digital aliases across different metaverses, while still maintaining a persistent digital identity” so that “a user can maintain continuity from avatar to avatar, profile to profile, and virtual environment to virtual environment” (Gendreau [0068]).
Claims 4, 12, and 20
As per claims 4, 12, and 20, Crowe further teaches:
wherein operations further comprise based on the second environment-specific profile, selecting the second metaverse environment for display of a second content item while the second avatar is within the second metaverse environment ([0019] “The contexts are derived from the virtual beings monitored responses in interactions with the avatars and interactions are used to select key words for targeted advertisements to be presented to each avatar in the virtual world.” And, [0021] “selecting key words . . . to select advertising to present to the first and second avatars.” And, [0020] “the first advertisement is based on a first end user profile for a first end user associated with the first avatar and the second version of advertisement is based on a second end user profile for a second end user associated with the second avatar.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Crowe to include the first avatar being controlled by the same particular user and [a second environment-specific profile corresponding to the second metaverse environment] for the particular user and [wherein the second environment-specific profile for the particular user is different than the first environment-specific profile] for the particular user as taught by Gendreau in order to “allow[] the user to maintain multiple digital aliases across different metaverses, while still maintaining a persistent digital identity” so that “a user can maintain continuity from avatar to avatar, profile to profile, and virtual environment to virtual environment” (Gendreau [0068]).
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120011002 (“Crowe”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20250245025 (“Gendreau”) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20180075510 (“Greenberger”).
Claims 2, 10, and 18
As per claims 2, 10, and 18, Crowe does not explicitly teach but Greenberger teaches:
wherein the first meta verse environment is selected for displaying of the first content item in response to determining that the first content item is better suited for presenting to the particular user in (a) the first metaverse environment associated with the first behavior by the first avatar corresponding to the particular user than (b) the second meta verse environment associated with the second behavior by the second avatar corresponding to the particular user ([0020] “the virtual content ranking module can also rank and select content that may be displayed in a virtual environment. The virtual content can be ranked by how related it is to information stored in a user profile, such as zone visits, dwell times, and purchases. Virtual content related to information in the user profile is likely to be of interest to the user. Content with high rankings (e.g., content that may be of interest to the user) may be selected to be displayed in a virtual environment, such as a website, viewed by the user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Crowe and Gendreau to include wherein the first meta verse environment is selected for displaying of the first content item in response to determining that the first content item is better suited for presenting to the particular user in (a) the first metaverse environment associated with the first behavior by the first avatar corresponding to the particular user than (b) the second meta verse environment associated with the second behavior by the second avatar corresponding to the particular user as taught by Greenberger so that “virtual content can be ranked according to a user's interest levels, stored in their user profile” which “can help determine how to present the virtual content in a way that appeals to the use” (Greenberger [0044]).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120011002 (“Crowe”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20250245025 (“Gendreau”) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20190272586 (“Huang”).
Claims 3, 11, and 19
As per claims 3, 11, and 19, Crowe does not explicitly teach but Huang teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise determining, based on the second environment-specific profile, that the first content item is not suitable for displaying to the second avatar while the second avatar is engaged in the second behavior in the second metaverse environment ([0105] “when the fitted clothes are inappropriate with the current shopping model of the user, the display interface of the virtual reality device displays an icon ‘x’ for prompting the user that the display effect of the clothes and the current shopping model of the user is inappropriate.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Crowe and Gendreau to include wherein the operations further comprise determining, based on the second environment-specific profile, that the first content item is not suitable for displaying to the second avatar while the second avatar is engaged in the second behavior in the second metaverse environment as taught by Huang “improving the efficiency of online shopping” (Huang [0062]) and “ to save shopping time and bring convenience to the user” (Huang [0080]).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120011002 (“Crowe”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20250245025 (“Gendreau”) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20220360592 (“Grantham”).
Claims 5 and 13
As per claims 5 and 13, Crowe does not explicitly teach but Grantham teaches:
wherein the first environment-specific profile indicates one or more of: a level of aggression; a level of exploration; a level of completion; a level of risk; a level of socialization; a level of content consumption; and a level of consumerism ([0045] “risk score or level; a relationship estimation circuit configured to estimate, based on the detection rule set, the relationship between the user activity performed in the virtual environment that is associated with the certain user profile.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Crowe and Gendreau to include wherein the first environment-specific profile indicates one or more of: a level of aggression; a level of exploration; a level of completion; a level of risk; a level of socialization; a level of content consumption; and a level of consumerism as taught by Grantham so that “user profile/accounts having a higher risk score or level are monitored with increased due diligence of the user profile/account and associated transactions” (Grantham [0066]).
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120011002 (“Crowe”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20250245025 (“Gendreau”) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20240185476 (“Palamadai”).
Claims 6 and 14
As per claims 6 and 14, Crowe does not explicitly teach but Palamadai teaches:
wherein the first environment-specific profile indicates a focus score comprising at least one of:
a level of attention; and a level of engagement ([0021] “a user participating in a virtual reality environment, receiving data describing locations of objects within the VR environment and a field of view of the user, determining attention scores of the objects.” And, [0018] “determining a first object of the one or more objects that has a highest score of an attention score; and enhancing the VR presentation of the object in the field of view of the first user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Crowe and Gendreau to include wherein the first environment-specific profile indicates a focus score comprising at least one of: a level of attention; and a level of engagement as taught by Palamadai in order to “provide adaptability, relevance, flexibility, real-time updates, and improved user engagement” (Palamadai [0021]).
Claims 7 and 15
As per claims 7 and 15, Crowe does not explicitly teach but Palamadai teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: generating an environment-specific attention score for the particular user in relation to the first metaverse environment based on the first environment-specific profile, the environment-specific attention score corresponding to a predicted level of attention by the particular user for advertisements within the first metaverse environment and wherein selecting the first content item based on the first environment-specific profile comprises selecting the first content item based on the environment-specific attention score ([0021] “a user participating in a virtual reality environment, receiving data describing locations of objects within the VR environment and a field of view of the user, determining attention scores of the objects.” And, [0018] “determining a first object of the one or more objects that has a highest score of an attention score; and enhancing the VR presentation of the object in the field of view of the first user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Crowe and Gendreau to include wherein the operations further comprise: generating an environment-specific attention score for the particular user in relation to the first metaverse environment based on the first environment-specific profile, the environment-specific attention score corresponding to a predicted level of attention by the particular user for advertisements within the first metaverse environment as taught by Palamadai in order to “provide adaptability, relevance, flexibility, real-time updates, and improved user engagement” (Palamadai [0021]).
Claims 8 and 16
As per claims 8 and 16, Crowe does not explicitly teach but Palamadai teaches:
generating an environment-specific engagement score for the particular user in relation to the first metaverse environment based on the first environment-specific profile, the environment-specific engagement score corresponding to a predicted level of interaction by the particular user for advertisements within the first metaverse environment; wherein selecting the first content item based on the first environment-specific profile comprises selecting the first content item based on the environment-specific engagement score. ([0021] “a user participating in a virtual reality environment, receiving data describing locations of objects within the VR environment and a field of view of the user, determining attention scores of the objects.” And, [0018] “determining a first object of the one or more objects that has a highest score of an attention score; and enhancing the VR presentation of the object in the field of view of the first user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Crowe and Gendreau to include wherein the operations further comprise: generating an environment-specific attention score for the particular user in relation to the first metaverse environment based on the first environment-specific profile, the environment-specific attention score corresponding to a predicted level of attention by the particular user for advertisements within the first metaverse environment as taught by Palamadai in order to “provide adaptability, relevance, flexibility, real-time updates, and improved user engagement” (Palamadai [0021]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication Number 8979652 (“Ciszewski”) discloses analyzing avatar movement interactions in a virtual environment
US Patent Application Publication Number 20250061472 (“Kabra”) discloses predicting levels of user attention and determining user attention scores for content in virtual reality
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 ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622