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 § 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) 1-9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Emori et al (20090199111).
As per claim 1, Kishi et al (20130198861) teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (as using a processor to perform the steps – para 0021, para 0039):
control display of an object in a first manner based on the object being controlled by a human, and control display of the object in a second manner, different from the first manner, based on the object being controlled by an artificial intelligence (as, using an authentication process on the avatar to make an identification determination – para 0009; reflecting back on para 0005, wherein, in the environment of the virtual world, determining if an avatar is human-controlled or software-controlled entities; furthermore, see para 0083, calculating if the input is from a human or nonhuman, entity; AND, displaying/showing, either positive/negative, that the controlling entity is/isnot a specified type – para 0089, the specified type being human/nonhuman; and displaying a visual indicator, indicating the identify confidence level – para 0078);
wherein the second manner comprises displaying
As per claim 1, Kishi et al (20130198861) teaches the general concept of presenting visual indicators toward the identity of the avatar (human or nonhuman), as noted above, but does not explicitly teach the idea of using a speech balloon to represent/highlight the said identification; Emori et al (20090199111) teaches the generates of speech balloon objects and managing the message based on the speech balloon objects (see para 0071), as well as having a priority list of speech balloon types (see para 0144). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of object displays and labeling, to modify the display of pertinent information/characteristics as taught by Kishi et al (20130198861) with a speech balloon as the visual marker, as taught by Emori et al (20090199111) because it would advantageously allow for not only showing the status/characteristic, but also to rank the marker according to priority (see Emori et al (20090199111), para 0146- 0148).
As per claim 2, the combination of Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Emori et al (20090199111) teaches the information processing of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the object is controlled by a human or the artificial intelligence based on characteristic information, and wherein the characteristic information indicates a characteristic of an action of the object uses characteristic information which indicates a characteristic of an action of the object (see Kishi et al (20130198861), wherein, in the environment of the virtual world, determining if an avatar is human-controlled or software-controlled entities; furthermore, see para 0083, calculating if the input is from a human or nonhuman, entity; and as, the action/challenge can be in the form of, a type of response/action, to the challenge – encrypt/decrypt a message, perform a complex math problem – para 0049, or more traditionally, CAPTCHA mechanism – para 0006).
As per claim 3, the combination of Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Emori et al (20090199111) teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the characteristic information comprises an amount of time from a first time when an action asking the object to utter is performed to a second time when the object starts uttering (see Kishi et al (20130198861), determining if/how much time has elapsed, is a quick response time – para 0048, based on the initially presented challenge; examiner notes that Kishi et al (20130198861) does not particularly restrict the types of challenges – see para 0055; it is old and notoriously well known in the art of authentication/ challenge systems to use verbal/utterance type challenges, as part of Kishi et al (20130198861) teaching challenge response formats – para 0055).
As per claim 4, the combination of Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Emori et al (20090199111) teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the object to perform a predetermined task and based on a result of the predetermined task, determine whether the object is being controlled by a human or the artificial intelligence (see Kishi et al (20130198861), determining the performance of the avatar – see para 0047, para 0048, and based on speed/accuracy of the first completion, modifying the next challenge, to verify).
As per claim 5, the combination of Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Emori et al (20090199111) teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: authenticate a person associated with the object; and based on a predetermined amount of time having elapsed after the person is successfully authenticated, determine that the object is controlled by a human (as, Kishi et al (20130198861), determining based on a positive determination, is a human, -- para 0081, including a “response time” – para 0052; in other words, a response time is used to determine a successful ‘authentication’ – par 0052, and one embodiment, of a ‘positive authentication’, is, verifying a human entity, controlling the avatar – para 0081; and in the instance of ‘preventing machine controlled access’, using CAPTCHA to allow humans to have further access – para 0008).
As per claim 6, the combination of Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Emori et al (20090199111) teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to present predetermine information to the object, which has been determined as being controlled by a human (see Kishi et al (20130198861), as determining based on a positive determination, is a human, -- para 0081, after a response time is used to determine a successful ‘authentication’ – par 0052, and one embodiment, of a ‘positive authentication’, is, verifying a human entity, controlling the avatar – para 0081; and in the instance of ‘preventing machine controlled access’, using CAPTCHA to allow humans to have further access – para 0008).
Claims 7,8 are a display control method and non-transitory computer readable recording medium, both claims performing steps that are found, throughout claims 1-6 above and as such, claims 7,8 are similar in scope and content to claims 1-6; therefore, claims 7,8 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-6 above. Furthermore, Kishi et al (20130198861) teaches processors operating instruction stored in memory/storage devices – para 0039, 0040.
As per claim 9, the combination of Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Emori et al (20090199111) teaches displaying an indicator in association with a head portion of the object, wherein the indicator being displayed in the first manner differs from the indicator being displayed in the second manner ( see Emori et al (20090199111) showing different speech balloons tied to the top of the avatar – see fig. 3, subblock 200-1,2,3 mapped to 100-1,2,3,4,5).
As per claims 11,12, the combination of Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Emori et al (20090199111) teaches changing the visual indicator to the avatar, based on color/size, etc. – see Kishi et al (20130198861) para 0078, 0079, and based on changing parameters; and Emori et al (20090199111) teaching the creation of a new speech balloon for every distinct avatar/updated parameter – para 0107; with Kishi teaching the alteration of color/size associated with the avatar).
Claims 1,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Rapaport et al (20140236953).
As per claim 1, Kishi et al (20130198861) teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (as using a processor to perform the steps – para 0021, para 0039):
control display of an object in a first manner based on the object being controlled by a human, and control display of the object in a second manner, different from the first manner, based on the object being controlled by an artificial intelligence (as, using an authentication process on the avatar to make an identification determination – para 0009; reflecting back on para 0005, wherein, in the environment of the virtual world, determining if an avatar is human-controlled or software-controlled entities; furthermore, see para 0083, calculating if the input is from a human or nonhuman, entity; AND, displaying/showing, either positive/negative, that the controlling entity is/isnot a specified type – para 0089, the specified type being human/nonhuman; and displaying a visual indicator, indicating the identify confidence level – para 0078);
wherein the second manner comprises displaying
As per claim 1, Kishi et al (20130198861) teaches the general concept of presenting visual indicators toward the identity of the avatar (human or nonhuman), as noted above, but does not explicitly teach the idea of using a speech balloon to represent/highlight the said identification; Rapaport et al (20140236953) teaches the generates of speech balloon objects and managing the message based on the speech balloon objects (see para 0026, end), as well as having differing balloon types (para 0082, ie, popup ballon, pop-out balloon, explanatory balloon, etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of object displays and labeling, to modify the display of pertinent information/characteristics as taught by Kishi et al (20130198861) with a speech balloon as the visual marker, as taught by Rapaport et al (20140236953) because it would advantageously allow for not only showing the status/characteristic, but also displaying different types of balloons for different types of displayed information(see Rapaport et al (20140236953), para 0082, notifying the user what information is being displayed).
As per claim 10, the combination of Kishi et al (20130198861) in view of Rapaport et al (20140236953) teaches presenting advertisements (or not), based on the state of the object – see Rapaport et al (20140236953), para 0146, showing the use of a targeted advertisement server, based on the status of the users, as part of the strategy – see last 6 lines.
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. In particular, the arguments presented on pp 9-11 of the response are toward the amended claim language toward “speech balloon”, as well as, “control display of an object in a first manner….and…in a second manner…based on ….intelligence”. Examiner notes the further recitations to Kishi regarding the “first manner”/ “second manner”, and also the use of the Emori reference to address various types of speech balloons based on the status of the object; as well as Rapaport teaching the concept of differing speech balloons as well as selective use of advertisements based on the status of the object.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see related art listed on the PTO-892 form.
Furthermore, the following references were found, toward certain features in applicants spec/claims:
Toward Speech Balloons:
In addition to the presentation of the Emori (20090199111) and the Rapaport (20140236953),
Han et al (20180081520) teaches displaying information in an alternate of speech balloon or PopUpWindow; see para 0123
Rapaport (20200265070) teaching speech balloon populating by hovering over the image (para 0025)
Rodriguez Bravo (20240305647) teaches the marking of an imaged avatar (figure 4) based on, if the avatar is a bot (para 0078 – “human users are alerted that an avatar within the virtual digital environment is a potential bot”)
Falchuk et al (20230004676) teaches the determination of a human controlled avatar or a bot-controlled avatar (para 0014).
Dawson et al (20100162404) teaches identification of avatars, in the virtual world, either human or non-human (para 0045, 0046).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 10/14/2026
Prosecution Insights