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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/8/24, 1/23/25 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 17/377018, filed 7/15/21, prior application no 18/225341, filed 7/24/23, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is recommended to amend the phrase "monitoring...in a virtual environment" to ""monitoring...in the virtual environment". Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11752435 and claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12138553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the present application are merely broader in scope than that of U.S. Patent No. 11752435 and U.S. Patent No. 12138553. Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 11752435 and U.S. Patent No. 12138553 “invention” meets the limitations of the instant application.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11752435
U.S. Patent No. 12138553
1. A method comprising: detecting an event between a first character and a second character in a virtual environment; monitoring a plurality of actions of the first character in a virtual environment after the detected event; generating a first score for the first character based at least in part on the monitored plurality of actions; receiving a threshold score; comparing the first score to the threshold score; and causing a visible property of the first character in the virtual environment to be altered based, at least in part, on determining that the first score is below the threshold score.
1. A method comprising: monitoring, using control circuitry, avatar behavior in a computer-generated environment; generating a first performance score for a first avatar based at least in part on the monitored avatar behavior; detecting a dispute between the first avatar and a second avatar in the computer-generated environment; monitoring the behavior of the first avatar in the computer-generated environment after the detected dispute; generating a second performance score based at least in part on the monitored behavior of the first avatar in the computer-generated environment after the detected dispute, wherein the second performance score is lower than the first performance score due to inaction of the first avatar in the computer-generated environment; and altering of a visible property of the first avatar in the computer-generated environment, the altering being based at least in part on a comparison of the first performance score to the second performance score.
1. A method comprising: monitoring a first one or more actions of a first character in a virtual environment; generating a first score for the first character based at least in part on the monitored first one or more actions; detecting an event between the first character and a second character in the virtual environment; monitoring a second one or more actions of the first character in the virtual environment after the detected event; generating a second score based at least in part on the monitored second one or more actions of the first character in the virtual environment after the detected event, wherein the second score is lower than the first score due to at least one of: (a) the first character changing action patterns in the virtual environment and (b) the first character performing one or more actions in the virtual environment that are not consistent with a prescribed role assigned to the first character; and causing a visible property of the first character in the virtual environment to be altered based, at least in part, on a comparison of the first score to the second score.
11. An apparatus comprising: control circuitry; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the control circuitry, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following: detect an event between a first character and a second character in a virtual environment; monitor a plurality of actions of the first character in a virtual environment after the detected event; generate a first score for the first character based at least in part on the monitored plurality of actions; receive a threshold score; compare the first score to the threshold score; and cause a visible property of the first character in the virtual environment to be altered based, at least in part, on determining that the first score is below the threshold score.
11. A system comprising: a storage device; and control circuitry configured to: monitor avatar behavior in a computer-generated environment; generate a first performance score for a first avatar based at least in part on the monitored avatar behavior; detect a dispute between the first avatar and a second avatar in the computer-generated environment; monitor the behavior of the first avatar in the computer-generated environment after the detected dispute; generate a second performance score based at least in part on the monitored behavior of the first avatar in the computer-generated environment after the detected dispute, wherein the second performance score is lower than the first performance score due to inaction of the first avatar in the computer-generated environment; and alter a visible property of the first avatar in the computer-generated environment, the altering being based at least in part on a comparison of the first performance score to the second performance score.
10. An apparatus comprising: control circuitry; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the control circuitry, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following: monitor a first one or more actions of a first character in a virtual environment; generate a first score for the first character based at least in part on the monitored first one or more actions; detect an event between the first character and a second character in the virtual environment; monitor a second one or more actions of the first character in the virtual environment after the detected event; generate a second score based at least in part on the monitored second one or more actions of the first character in the virtual environment after the detected event, wherein the second score is lower than the first score due to at least one of: (a) the first character changing action patterns in the virtual environment and (b) the first character performing one or more actions in the virtual environment that are not consistent with a prescribed role assigned to the first character; and cause a visible property of the first character in the virtual environment to be altered based, at least in part, on a comparison of the first score to the second score.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 11,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “detecting an event between a first character and a second character; monitoring a plurality of actions of the first character after the detected event; generating a first score for the first character based at least in part on the monitored plurality of actions; receiving a threshold score; comparing the first score to the threshold score”, are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a virtual environment, control circuitry; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the control circuitry, causing a visible property of the first character in the virtual environment to be altered based, at least in part, on determining that the first score is below the threshold score”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Orrino et al. (2022/0032198) and Garbow et al. (2009/0174702) teaches the additional elements (see Orrino, ¶¶0040-0045, 0049; see Garbow, ¶¶0022-0027, 0054).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-19, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-19 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbow et al. (2009/0174702) in view of Orrino et al. (2022/0032198).
Re Claim 1,
Garbow discloses a method comprising:
detecting an event between a first character and a second character in a virtual environment (Fig 2-3, ¶¶0040-0041; the system receives an interaction of a child user with another user of a virtual world);
monitoring a plurality of actions of the first character in a virtual environment after the detected event (¶¶0041-0044, 0047-0048; the received interactions may be analyzed for indications of an inappropriate interaction, further, the analyzing process is performed incrementally);
and causing a visible property of the first character in the virtual environment to be altered (Fig 5, ¶¶0053-0054; the avatar of the abuser is displayed with a visual indicator).
Garbow does not explicitly disclose generating a first score for the first character based at least in part on the monitored plurality of actions, receiving a threshold score, comparing the first score to the threshold score, determining that the first score is below the threshold score.
However, Orrino teaches generating a first score for the first character based at least in part on the monitored plurality of actions, receiving a threshold score, comparing the first score to the threshold score, determining that the first score is below the threshold score (Fig 2-3, ¶¶0057-0063, 0068-0069, 0110; the system analyzes the communications and user action data to determine a user score, wherein the user score is compared to corrective action thresholds, further, a corrective action is implemented if the score falls below the thresholds). Orrino further teaches such a configuration provides fun and enjoyment for the participants involved (¶0002). 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 teaching of Orrino into the monitoring system of Garbow in order to provide fun and enjoyment for the users in the virtual environment.
Re Claims 2, 12,
Garbow discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the first score is below the threshold score due to at least one of: (a) the first character changing action patterns in the virtual environment; (b) the first character performing one or more actions in the virtual environment that are not consistent with a prescribed role assigned to the first character; and (c) inaction of the first character in the virtual environment. However, Orrino teaches the first score is below the threshold score due to at least one of: (a) the first character changing action patterns in the virtual environment; (b) the first character performing one or more actions in the virtual environment that are not consistent with a prescribed role assigned to the first character; and (c) inaction of the first character in the virtual environment (Fig 2-3, ¶¶0057-0063, 0068-0069). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 3, 13,
Garbow discloses the detecting the event further comprises one or more of detecting abusive language from an audio signal corresponding to the first character and/or the second character, or detecting inappropriate interactions between the first character and the second character in the virtual environment (¶¶0028, 0040).
Re Claims 4, 14,
Garbow discloses all limitations as set forth above including the visible property of the first character is caused to be altered but does not explicitly disclose a difference between the first score and the threshold score exceeds a predetermined value. However, Orrino teaches a difference between the first score and the threshold score exceeds a predetermined value (Fig 2-3, ¶¶0057-0063, 0068-0069). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 5, 15,
Garbow discloses all limitations as set forth above including the visible property of the first character is caused to be altered but does not explicitly disclose the first score is below the threshold score for a time period that is longer than a predetermined amount of time. However, Orrino teaches the first score is below the threshold score for a time period that is longer than a predetermined amount of time. (Fig 2-3, ¶¶0057-0063, 0068-0069). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 6, 16,
Garbow discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose monitoring a second plurality of actions of the first character in the virtual environment after the generating of the first score; generating a second score based at least in part on the second plurality of actions of the first character in the virtual environment after the generating of the first score; and initiating an action on the first character when a difference between the second score and the threshold score exceeds a predetermined value. However, Orrino teaches monitoring a second plurality of actions of the first character in the virtual environment after the generating of the first score; generating a second score based at least in part on the second plurality of actions of the first character in the virtual environment after the generating of the first score; and initiating an action on the first character when a difference between the second score and the threshold score exceeds a predetermined value. (Fig 2-3, ¶¶0057-0063, 0068-0069). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 7, 17,
Garbow discloses all limitations as set forth above including initiating an action on the first character but does not explicitly disclose a difference between the first score and the threshold score exceeds a predetermined value for longer than a predetermined amount of time. However, Orrino teaches a difference between the first score and the threshold score exceeds a predetermined value for longer than a predetermined amount of time. (Fig 2-3, ¶¶0057-0063, 0068-0069). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 8, 19,
Garbow discloses the first character is altered by applying a graphical element to the first character and/or initiating a removing of the first character from the virtual environment (Fig 5, ¶¶0053-0054).
Re Claim 9,
Garbow discloses the visible property of the first character is altered by changing the appearance of the first character in the virtual world (Fig 5, ¶¶0053-0054).
Re Claim 10,
Garbow discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose storing the first score in a memory. However, Orrino teaches storing the first score in a memory (¶¶0111-0112, 0116-0117).
Re Claim 11,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached on 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights