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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant arguments/Remarks made in amendment in which the following is noted: claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16 are amended; the rejection of the claims traversed; claims 2 – 4, and 6 are cancelled; and claims 17 – 20 are newly added. Claims 1, 5, and 7 – 20 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Further consideration of Bogal [0047] discloses storage processing for storing in advacnce, identification information for identifying the specific avatar is executed (Bogal [0047] discloses a database of identifying information) and wherein the determination processing includes determining based on the second avatar information and the identification information, whether or not the second avatar is the specific avatar (Bhogal [0046] [0047] the position the avatar and identifier used to determine whether avatar is second avatar, as claimed, to implement the protection protocol).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 – 13, and 15 - 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhogal et al; (Publication number: US 2010/0081508 A1), hereafter Bhogal.
Regarding claim 1:
Bhogal discloses an information processing apparatus that processes information in a virtual space, comprising one or more processors and/or circuitry (Bhogal ABSTRACT; Figure 5), configured to:
set a user using the information processing apparatus as a first user (Bhogal [0031] and Figure 2 protected avatar 120), and execute user information acquisition processing for acquiring user information of the first user (Bhogal Figure 1 102; protection protocol for first avatar [0026]);
execute avatar information acquisition processing for acquiring first avatar information of a first avatar expressing the first user in the virtual space and second avatar information of a second avatar expressing a second user different from the first user in the virtual space (Bhogal Figure 2 130; [0046 - 0047] position of protected avatar and second avatar 130 are determined to implement exclusion protocol);
execute determination processing for determining, based on at least the user information, whether or not the second avatar is a specific avatar (Bhogal [0047] identifier for avatars); and
execute processing on the specific avatar, in a case where it is determined, as a result of determination performed by the determination processing, that the second avatar is the specific avatar (Bhogal Figure 1 110; [0026]), wherein the avatar information acquisition processing includes acquiring, as the first avatar information, at least one of a position in the virtual space of the first virtual avatar or a conversation between the first avatar and the second avatar, and acquiring, as the second avatar information, at least one of a position in a virtual space, an appearance, or an action of the second avatar (Bhogal Figure 2 130; [0046 - 0047] position of protected avatar and second avatar 130 are determined to implement exclusion protocol).
wherein storage processing for storing, in advance, identification information for identifying the specific avatar is executed (Bhogal [0047] database comprising identifier is storage for storing in advanced, as claimed), and wherein the determination processing includes determining, based on the second avatar information and the identification information, whether or not the second avatar is the specific avatar (Bhogal [0046] [0047] the position the avatar and identifier used to determined whether avatar is second avatar, as claimed, to implement the protection protocol).
Regarding claim 7:
Bhogal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing on the specific avatar includes setting an entry prohibited area between the first avatar and the second avatar in the virtual space, for inhibiting the second avatar from entering (Bhogal Figure 2 [0031] exclusion zone 122).
Regarding claim 8:
Bhogal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processing on the specific avatar includes, in a case where the second avatar has entered the entry prohibited area, changing the position of the second avatar in the virtual space to outside the entry prohibited area (Bhogal [0047]).
Regarding claim 9:
Bhogal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processing on the specific avatar includes, in a case where the second avatar moves toward the entry prohibited area even though the position of the second avatar in the virtual space has been changed, inhibiting the second avatar from further moving (Bhogal [0031] prevented from approaching).
Regarding claim 10:
Bhogal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processing on the specific avatar includes, in a case where the second avatar has entered the entry prohibited area, notifying that the second avatar has entered the entry prohibited area (Bhogal Figure 2 142).
Regarding claim 11:
Bhogal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein processing for changing the size of the entry prohibited area is executed (Bhogal [0039] proximity/exclusion zone conditional upon regional VU designation)
Regarding claim 12:
Bhogal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing on the specific avatar includes reducing a distance between the first avatar and the second avatar in the virtual space (Bhogal Figure 2 [0031] [0046] a processing for reduction of distance occurs when second avatar approaches the protected avatar 120)
Regarding claim 13:
Bhogal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein processing for displaying an image of the virtual space is executed (Bhogal [0001 – 0002][0004]).
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and further Bhogal [0061]), and wherein the avatar information acquisition processing module includes acquiring, as the first avatar information, at least one of a position in the virtual space avatar or a conversation between the first avatar and the second avatar, and acquiring, as the second avatar information, at least one of a position of the virtual space, an appearance, or an action of the second avatar (Bhogal Figure 2 130; [0046- 0047] position of protected avatar and second avatar 130 are determined to implement to exclusion protocol).
Regarding claim 17:
Bhogal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the avatar information acquisition processing module includes acquiring, as the first avatar information, at least one of a position in the virtual space avatar or a conversation between the first avatar and the second avatar, and acquiring, as the second avatar information, at least one of a position of the virtual space, an appearance, or an action of the second avatar (Bhogal Figure 2 130; [0046- 0047] position of protected avatar and second avatar 130 are determined to implement to exclusion protocol).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal in view of Moberg et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0264363 A1), hereafter Moberg.
Regarding claim 14:
Bhogal does not disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is a head-mounted display.
However, Moberg discloses an avatar teleport controller. More particularly, Moberg discloses wherein the information processing apparatus is a head-mounted display (Moberg [0008] HMD).
It would have been obvious to modify Bhogal wherein the information processing apparatus is a head-mounted display, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to provide the user with a hand-free immersive experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 19, and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is allowed based on incorporation of subject matter previously objected as allowable.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (EST).
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 12 June 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights