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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. US 2019/0046883 by Hodge is now cited in relation to the amended subject matter.
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).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0182395 by Iguchi et al. (Iguchi) in view of US 2019/0046883 by Hodge (Hodge).
With respect to claim 1, Iguchi teaches an operating method of an electronic device, the operating method comprising:
transmitting, by a first metaverse platform (MP), a migration request to migrate first avatar registered in the first MP to a second MP that is different from the first MP to the second MP; (Paragraph 167-169, 171, 174-176 – example first virtual space (metaverse) of first server and second virtual space of second server that operate independently from each other. The general objective of the invention is transferring the user avatar between such virtual spaces. A transfer request is received from user to transfer from a first virtual space to a second virtual space.)
transmitting, by the first MP, first data for the first avatar to the second MP (Paragraph 226-254, 246 , Fig. 12–the data of the first avatar of the first virtual space is used to determine permissions and conversions for such transfer. Paragraph 243 specifically indicates this determination processing and potential conversion may occur at the second server. Accordingly in such an embodiment, the second server would receive the first data for the first avatar (such as corresponding coordination data and object data) to perform the processing) and
determining, by the second MP, a second avatar to be used in the second MP based on the first data. (Paragraph 226-243 – based on coordination data and object data, a determination is made as to whether conversion/substation is needed. If not, the original avatar is determined to be used, otherwise a converted or substituted avatar is determined. Examiner again notes paragraph 243 explicitly indicates such determination can occur at the 2nd server)
Iguchi does not explicitly disclose determining, by the second MP, whether to allow the migration request based on reputation information of a user on the first MP based on the migration request; and subsequently proceeding in response to the migration request being allowed. Hodge teaches a user may have reputation information associated with them (Paragraph 61 – reputation rating). Requests to access a server or particular games may be restricted based on the reputation information. (Paragraph 61, 70 – if reputation rating is high enough, a user’s game request is allowed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the migration request of Iguchi include a reputation information checking mechanism as in Iguchi. One would be motivated to have this as it is desirable to protect other users from users of poor conduct (Hodge Paragraph 61).
With respect to claim 2, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 1, further comprising: converting, by the second MP, the first data according to a policy of the second MP when the first data transmitted from the first MP to the second MP needs to be converted according to the policy of the second MP. (Paragraphs 232-234, 259-263, 266, 267 – conversion of avatar data may be based on policy including permitted shapes (e.g. – gun shape may be prohibited) as well as display and other format requirements)
With respect to claim 4, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 1, wherein the first avatar is an original avatar managed by a user to express an identity of the user in the first MP. (Paragraph 31, 82, 174-175 – avatar represents the user in the virtual space, example transfer from first server to second server indicates the first server is the original in context)
With respect to claim 5, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 1, wherein the second avatar is a roaming avatar in which the first avatar is moved to the second MP and transformed according to a feature and compatibility of the second MP. (Paragraphs 174-175 , 226-243 – first avatar is transferred to the second MP and converted as necessary, thus is a roaming avatar per the claim)
With respect to claim 6, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the second avatar comprises: determining whether the first avatar is allowed in the second MP when the first avatar is an avatar that supports synchronization in the second MP (Paragraphs 244-256 – descriptions of determination of first avatar is allowed based on, for example, permissions); determining the first avatar to be the second avatar when the first avatar is allowed in the second MP (Paragraph 232, 258 – first avatar will be the second avatar when allowed and conversion not necessary) ; and determining the second avatar by modifying the first avatar when the first avatar is not allowed in the second MP (Paragraph 234-235, 259-263, 266, 267 - avatar is modified through conversion or substitution if not allowed based on a particular requirement)
With respect to claim 7, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the second avatar comprises: determining whether an identifier of the first avatar is registered in the second MP when the first avatar is an avatar that does not support synchronization in the second MP; and determining an avatar corresponding to the identifier of the first avatar registered in the second MP to be the second avatar when the identifier of the first avatar is registered in the second MP. (Paragraph 258 = a common ID may be registered in the virtual space and conversion determined unnecessary such that the first avatar will be the second avatar )
With respect to claim 8, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the second avatar comprises determining the second avatar by changing an appearance of the first avatar in the second MP when the first avatar does not support synchronization in the second MP and an identifier of the first avatar is not registered in the second MP. (Paragraph 258-276 – if not a common ID, change in a appearance is part of the conversion processing)
With respect to claim 9, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 8, wherein the appearance of the first avatar, which is not changed in the second MP, is displayed visually differently and changed according to user control. (Paragraphs 82-83, 184-185 – a user’s avatar can be dynamic and thus a user may change their first avatar after a transfer of the avatar to a second virtual space)
With respect to claim 10, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the second avatar comprises determining the second avatar to be a default avatar provided by the second MP when the first avatar is not capable of being used in the second MP or a command to use another avatar in the second MP is received from a user. (Paragraph 234-235, 272– a provided preset substitute avatar acts as an equivalent to a default avatar)
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are similar in scope to claims 1-2 and 4-10 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi and Hodge and in further view of US 2024/0390796 by Troy et al. (Troy).
With respect to claim 3, Iguchi as modified teaches the operating method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: transmitting, by the second MP, second data for the second avatar used in the second MP to the first MP; and synchronizing, by the first MP, the first avatar registered in the first MP with the second avatar, based on the second data.
Troy teaches a system for managing an avatar across multiple metaverse platforms (Abstract, Paragraph 2). This management includes where if changes are made to the avatar on one platform, the data will be sent to and synchronized with other associated platforms. (Paragraphs 86-87 - any changes or updates made to the avatar or assets in one of the 3D rendering platforms 10 are reflected across all other platforms; Any changes made during these sessions are saved and synchronized across platforms)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first avatar on the first MP of Iguchi be synchronized with the second data of the second avatar as in Troy. One would be motivated to have this for the benefit of a seamless user experience across multiple platforms (Troy paragraph 86)
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
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 DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights