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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 3/13/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations recite “additionally generating the second fingerprint based on a second avatar that is controlled by the first user”.
However, claim 3 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “a second fingerprint that represents one or more second motions of at least one avatar when controlled by video data recorded by one or more authorized users”.
While there is support in the specification as filed for both the limitations “generating the second fingerprint based on a second avatar that is controlled by the first user” and “a second fingerprint that represents one or more second motions of at least one avatar when controlled by video data recorded by one or more authorized users”, they are both independent and exclusive of each other. That is, there is no support for combining both into a system that generates a single second fingerprint based on both an avatar that is controlled by video data and an avatar that is controlled by the first user at the same time.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter includes subject matter not present at the time the application was filed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-14, and 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 3 and 15 would be allowable by overcoming the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth above.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach, neither singly nor in combination, the claimed limitations of “determining an identity of the first user based on the first fingerprint and a second fingerprint that represents one or more second motions of at least one avatar when controlled by video data recorded by one or more authorized users” wherein the first fingerprint “represents one or more motions of a first avatar that is controlled by a first user” as recited in claim 1 and similarly stated in claim(s) 13 and 20. These limitations, in conjunction with other limitations in the independent claim(s), are not specifically disclosed or remotely suggested in the prior art of record. A review of claim(s) 1-2, 4-14, and 16-20 indicates claim(s) 1-2, 4-14, and 16-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights