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 .
Priority
The previous priority claims have been removed by Applicant by way of an updated Application Data Sheet (ADS) received 5/4/2025. As a result, the effective filing date is the actual filing date of 1/13/2025.
Specification
As a result of the above-mentioned change to priority, the specification should be updated to remove the priority claims on page 1. If desired, the specification may still reference related applications, but should remove the priority claims to those applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites a first person gaming application “with no use of avatars” on the fourth from last line of the claim. While the specification provides support for a first person game, the specification does not state that this is provided “with no use of avatars.” The Examiner notes that while a first-person perspective is defined in the specification as being “any graphical perspective rendered from the viewpoint of the player character” (Spec. 5), this does not mean that some part of the player avatar, such as the avatar’s hands when looking down or the avatar’s reflection in a mirror is not also visible in the game. As such, it cannot be said that a first person game is without the use of an avatar. This is equally true when discussing the avatars of other players or NPCs that may be visible in the game. For purposes of this action, the first person game is interpreted in accordance with the definition in the specification.
As such, this feature is new matter that must be deleted from claim 1. Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0080346 to Abbas (hereinafter Abbas) in view of US 2016/0292908 to Obert (hereinafter Obert) and US 20220126210 to Kumar et al. (hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claim 8, Abbas teaches a method of playing a gamified application based on a virtual reality technology (e.g., an avatar in a virtual world that is based on a real world representation of the player; see at least the abstract and ¶¶ 89 and 97), comprising a game, the gamified application to be played by one or more players (e.g., the user who uploads a facial representation in an online virtual environment in ¶¶ 89 and 97), the method comprising:
pre-game:
a player becomes a designated player upon feeding the player (his/her) facial images to the gamified application, wherein the facial images are required for generating a customized game (graphical user interfaces provide a representation of a user as an avatar which evolves in a virtual world, as described in the abstract, wherein the baseline avatar may be generated through capturing of a facial image via a camera within the user’s electronic device including a face in ¶ 97);
in a virtual reality game:
the designated player plays the gamified application within a virtual reality gaming environment wherein game is customized to the player facial images (see at least Fig. 14 and ¶ 107).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 12, and 13, and further regarding claim 8, Abbas teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching mirroring or mirroring using ray tracing. In a related disclosure, Obert teaches efficient methods of ray tracing in a digital representation of a scene (abstract). Obert teaches that ray tracing methods may apply optics properties for reflection of surfaces (see at least ¶ 51), which constitutes mirroring and mirroring using ray tracing as claimed. Obert further teaches the use of ray tracing in video games (see at least ¶ 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify Abbas to include the ray tracing techniques for mirroring reflection as taught by Obert in order to improve the realism of the virtual environment.
Further regarding claims 1, 8, and 12, the combination of Abbas and Obert teaches or suggests the invention as discussed above, but lacks in explicitly teaching mirroring or mirroring with ray tracing in real time. In a related disclosure, Kumar teaches various uses of graphics processing systems in video games (abstract). More particularly, Kumar recognizes that it was possible to provide ray tracing cores to accelerate ray tracing operations for both real-time ray tracing and non-real-time ray tracing implementations. Kumar therefore demonstrates that those of ordinary skill were aware that ray tracing could be provided in both real-time and non-real-time formats. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Abbas and Obert to include a real-time ray tracing to implement the claimed real-time mirroring or mirroring with ray tracing in order to increase the realism of the game environment.
Further regarding claims 1 and 12, the combination of Abbas, Obert, and Kumar teaches or suggests the invention as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Furthermore, the combination teaches or suggests a gaming storyline customized to the designated player (e.g., the user’s face appears in the game and may have an avatar that is matched to a given game such as by a military uniform or other clothing or appearance in accordance with their real-world context; see at least ¶¶ 109-111 of Abbas).
Further regarding claim 1, the combination of Abbas, Obert, and Kumar teaches or suggests wherein the development process is configured to create a customized ‘first person’ gaming application for the designated player. More particularly, Abbas teaches that a player may insert their personal avatar into a social media environment and/or a gaming environment rather than the display of the avatar within the original game (¶ 109). One game contemplated by Abbas is World of Warcraft (¶ 65). At the time of the effective date, World of Warcraft offered users the ability to choose first person or third person perspectives. When activated, a first person perspective does not show the face of the avatar because it is a depiction from the viewpoint of the avatar. As such, Abbas teaches or suggests a first person perspective as claimed. Note: As explained above under § 112, the feature of “no use of avatars” is not supported by the specification. For purposes of this action, the specification’s definition of a first person game is one where the viewpoint is “any graphical perspective rendered from the viewpoint of the player character.” Spec. 5.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 11, and 15, the combination of Abbas, Obert, and Kumar teaches or suggests wherein the real-time mirroring enables to take advantage of camera angles with off-screen objects and animation. The limitations of “off-screen objects and animation” is interpreted to mean elements within the virtual environment that are seen only in reflection and not directly. By way of analogy, if one were to look into a mirror at a wide angle, one would see reflections of the far side of the room without actually viewing the far side of the room directly. Such features are provided by Obert when the virtual camera of the video game is adjusted at a given angle to see the reflection of an object on a surface but not the object itself.
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 14, the combination of Abbas, Obert, and Kumar teaches or suggests wherein the designated player's facial images enable the player to experience mirroring of his/her facial images to support bodily self-consciousness during playing the gamified application (e.g., the user may receive feedback in the virtual game as to their health needs, such as quitting smoking, improved diet, exercise, and other lifestyle issues in at least ¶ 107 of Abbas).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, the instant amendments to the claims have overcome the previous double patenting and § 112 rejections. New grounds of rejection are presented hereinabove.
Applicant addresses the teachings of Abbas and Ober on pages 8-10 of the Remarks. The Examiner notes that the grounds of rejection have been changed in light of the instant claim amendments, and therefore the arguments are moot or addressed in the grounds of rejection above.
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 WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715