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 § 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards nonstatutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is directed a system for monitoring a virtual reality environment for cyberthreats comprising:
a server comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform a process operable to:
collect content from a virtual reality environment;
transform at least part of the collected content into a textual format;
execute at least one security rule on the transformed content to detect threatening content; and
in response to detecting the threatening content, transmit an alert to a user device.
Steps a), b), c) and d) are all recited as being performed by a computer. The recited computer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions.
Step a) describes collecting content, which amounts to mere data gathering -see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step b) describes transforming content into text but does not place any limits on how the transformation of content is done. The step amounts to a mental process which a human could perform with pen and paper.
Step c) recites executing a rule and detecting threatening content. The claim does not limit how the detection is performed, only that a generic rule is employed. There is nothing about the threatening content itself that would limit how it can be detected. The claim does not include additional analysis explaining the rule or the detection process. The step amounts to mental observation or evaluation
Step d) describes transmission of an alert. The step merely requires a generic output and does not impose any limits on how the data is output or require any particular components to output the data.
The judicial exception of “detecting threatening content” using a server comprising a processor and memory provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. The claim(s) include(s) additional elements such as “a server comprising one or more processors” and “a memory”, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely describe the use of generic computing components recited at a high level of generality where the computer is used as a tool to perform e.g. the generic computer function of data gathering -see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Accordingly, the 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 additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the additional elements when considered alone and in combination do not add
significantly more (i.e. do not at an inventive concept) to the exception.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20240195825 to Durvasula.
Regarding claim 1, Durvasula teaches a system for monitoring a virtual reality environment for cyberthreats comprising:
a server comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform a process operable to:
collect content from a virtual reality environment (abstract, collect content from virtual environment);
transform at least part of the collected content into a textual format (¶ 83, transformation of content into text);
execute at least one security rule on the transformed content to detect threatening content (abstract, execution of rule to detect security threats); and
in response to detecting the threatening content, transmit an alert to a user device (¶ 98-100, claim 1, clam 11, trigger alert).
Regarding claim 2, 10,
Durvasula teaches:
wherein collecting the content from the virtual reality environment comprises ingesting content via a server-controlled avatar or bot operating within the virtual reality environment (¶ 48-49, security engine).
Regarding claim 8, 16,
Durvasula teaches:
wherein the process is operable to, prior to executing the at least one security rule, perform a text-normalization procedures on the transformed content (¶ 78-83).
Claim 9 addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240195825 to Durvasula in view of US 20240235836 to Brien.
Regarding claim 3, 11,
Durvasula fails to teach but Brien teaches:
wherein ingesting the content via the server-controlled avatar or bot comprises recording audio within the virtual reality environment (¶ 114-115, recording audio/video within virtual world).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Brien. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Brien would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating virtual security and access (Brien, abstract, ¶ 109-115).
Regarding claim 4, 12,
Durvasula fails to teach but Brien teaches:
wherein ingesting the content via the server-controlled avatar or bot comprises recording video within the virtual reality environment (¶ 114-115, recording audio/video within virtual world). Motivation to include Brien is the same as presented above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durvasula in view of US 20210337013 to Krishnamurthy.
Regarding claim 5, 13,
Durvasula fails to teach but Krishnamurthy teaches:
wherein the process is operable to stream the collected content via the server-controlled avatar or bot (¶ 28, streaming).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Krishnamurthy. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Krishnamurthy would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating threat detection (Krishnamurthy, ¶ 28).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durvasula in view of US 20230125036 to Volum.
Regarding claim 6, 14,
Durvasula fails to teach but Volum teaches:
wherein the process is operable to navigate the server-controlled avatar or bot within the virtual reality environment (¶ 32-33, 42, virtual character navigates virtual environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of . The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Volum would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the use and interpretation of natural language input and to facilitate video game control (Volum, ¶ 27, 35, 41).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durvasula in view of US 20220353265 to Kumar.
Regarding claim 7, 15,
Durvasula fails to teach but Kumar teaches:
wherein transforming the at least part of the collected content into a textual format comprises applying one or more speech-to-text algorithms to the collected content (¶ 27, speech-to-text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of . The motivation to do so is that the teachings of would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the use and interpretation of voice commands (Kumar, ¶ 27).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
