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 .
The response filed on 11/19/2025 has been fully considered in preparing for this Office action.
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, 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 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 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 15, 21-13, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kancharlawar et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0109810, Kancharlawar”, hereinafter) in view of Boss et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0064359, “Boss”).
As per claim 1, Kancharlawar teaches an information processing device (computing device 203, Fig. 2) comprising:
at least one memory storing a computer program (217); and
at least one processor (¶ [71]) configured to execute the computer program to:
receive setting information indicating restriction of an entry to a partial region of a virtual space (¶ [63], security settings for private session);
set, as a specific region, the partial region indicated by the setting information (addressed above referring to ¶ [63], and also ¶ [48], “Movement of avatars to particular regions of a spatial field, such as particular floors, can be restricted”).
Kancharlawar does not expressly teach obtain age information of a user who operates an avatar in a case where the avatar attempts to enter the specific region; and determine whether to allow the avatar to enter the specific region based on whether the age information of the user satisfies a first condition, among one or more conditions. However, Kancharlawar does teach at ¶ [67], “For example, the session service 205 can enforce a credential policy requiring users to log in to a web-page, a spatial field 100, or a session. The session service 205 can restrict access to spatial fields 100 or sessions based on various networking information including, but not limited to, IP address, location, connection metrics (e.g., latency), age, language, and other factors”.
Boss teaches a similar method of verifying a credential of the user of an avatar to enter a zone in the virtual universe (see ¶ [12-13]), wherein the method further includes the above feature, i.e., obtain age information of a user who operates an avatar in a case where the avatar attempts to enter the specific region (¶ [35], obtaining credentials wherein credentials include age information, ¶ [23]); and
determine whether to allow the avatar to enter the specific region based on whether the age information of the user satisfies a first condition, among one or more conditions (¶ [40-41], determining whether avatar to enter area based on the age information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method as taught by Boss into the method as taught by Kancharlawar as addressed above, the advantage of which is to allows user to enter zone with appropriate age.
As per claim 2, as addressed above, the combined teachings of Kancharlawar and Boss does also include wherein the setting information includes information indicating a user who is allowed to use the partial region indicated by the setting information, the processor is configured to execute the computer program to set the one or more conditions for the user who is allowed to use the specific region based on the setting information, and allow the avatar to enter the specific region in a case where the user who operates the avatar that attempts to enter the specific region satisfies the one or more conditions (Kancharlawar, ¶ [77]).
As per claim 3, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss also teaches wherein the one or more conditions is set based on information regarding an attribute including at least one of a position or an affiliation of the user, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to allow the avatar to enter the specific region in a case where the attribute of the user who operates the avatar satisfies the one or more conditions (Kancharlawar, ¶ [9], [65]).
As per claim 5, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform control to move a rejected avatar, which is an avatar whose entry has been rejected, to a location different from the specific region (Kancharlawar, ¶ [6], ¶ [84], and ¶ [90], such as removing user from session to another location).
As per claim 6, as addressed above in claims 3 and 5, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss does also teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform control to move the rejected avatar to a different location according to an attribute of a user who operates the rejected avatar (Kancharlawar, ¶ [90]).
As per claim 7, as addressed in claim 5 above, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss does impliedly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform control to guide the rejected avatar to a location different from the specific region by another avatar (see Kancharlawar, ¶ [84], by avatar with administrative privilege).
As per claim 8, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss does also impliedly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to, in a case where there is a rejected avatar, notify of a user who operates an allowed avatar, which is an avatar allowed to enter the specific region, that there is a rejected avatar, receive a control instruction for the rejected avatar from a user terminal by which the allowed avatar is operated, and control the rejected avatar according to the control instruction (Kancharlawar, ¶ [84], reporting one or more users of removing one or more users via removal of a session indicator, session-admitted avatars).
Claim 11, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12, which is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13, which is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15, which is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22, which is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 23, which is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 25, which is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, 10, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kancharlawar et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0109810) in view of Boss et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0064359) further in view Zheng et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0134310, “Zheng”).
As per claim 4, as addressed, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss does not expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform biometric authentication of the user who operates the avatar present in the specific region at any given time, and determine whether to allow the avatar to enter the specific region in response to the biometric authentication.
However, biometric authentication of a user is well known in the art, one of which is disclosed by Zheng. In a very similar method of settings restricted regions and authentication (see Abstract, Fig. 1-3), Zheng teaches the above feature, i.e., perform biometric authentication of the user and determine whether to allow the user to enter the specific region in response to the biometric authentication (tables in Figs. 7 and 8, referring to ¶ [68]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of biometric authentication of a user as taught by Zheng and apply it to the user who operates the avatar as taught by the combined Kancharlawar-Boss as addressed above, the advantage of which is to ensure high security at regions where only authorized people are allowed to enter (¶ [3]).
As per claim 10, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss-Zheng does also impliedly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to move the rejected avatar to a different location (taught by Kancharlawar addressed in claim 5) based on whether the user who operates the rejected avatar has been authenticated by the biometric authentication (taught by Zheng as addressed in claim 4). Thus, claim 10 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 24, which is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kancharlawar et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0109810) in view of Boss et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0064359) further in view of Zheng et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0134310) and further in view of Hanai et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0195650, “Hanai”).
As per claim 9, the teaching of biometric authentication is addressed in claim 4 above referring to Zheng, and teaching of rejecting an unauthorized avatar is addressed in claim 5 above. However, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss-Zheng does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to synthesize a face image of the user with the rejected avatar in a case where the user who operates the rejected avatar has not been authenticated by the biometric authentication. However, as addressed above in claim 8, the combined Kancharlawar-Boss notifying other users of a rejected avatar that has not been authenticated by the biometric authentication.
Synthesizing a face image of a user with an avatar is well known in the art. One of which is described in Hanai with reference to Fig. 11, and ¶ [100], synthesizing a face image with the face of the avatar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method as taught by Hanai and apply to the combined method of Kancharlawar-Boss-Zheng as addressed above, the advantage of which is to actually know which user has been rejected and removed from the session/region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15, 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. The rejection above is relied upon based on the combined teachings of Kancharlawar and Boss to address the newly added limitation of the age information entered for authentication.
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 Hau H. Nguyen whose telephone number is: 571-272-7787. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI from 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard, can be reached on (571) 272-7773.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HAU H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611