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
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12236548 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Patent US 12236548 B2 contains substantially all the limitations of the instant application claims.
Application No. 19/033193
Patent No. US 12236548 B2
1. A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: identifying a first metaverse; identifying a second metaverse; merging the first metaverse and the second metaverse according to merging rules for a destination metaverse; interacting with a plurality of avatars to create an immersive experience in the destination metaverse; determining permanence rules for a plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse; and terminating the destination metaverse responsive to a predetermined condition according to the permanence rules.
1. A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving first defining information for a first metaverse;
receiving second defining information for a second metaverse;
identifying conflicts between the first defining information and the second defining information;
automatically negotiating resolution of the conflicts between the first defining information and the second defining information to define rules for a merged metaverse;
merging the first metaverse and the second metaverse according to the rules for the merged metaverse to define a destination metaverse;
interacting with a plurality of avatars to create an immersive experience in the destination metaverse;
providing, to a user associated with the first metaverse, an option to opt out of participation in the destination metaverse;
receiving, from the user associated with the first metaverse, an opt out indication; and
compensating the user associated with the first metaverse for elements of the first metaverse merged into the destination metaverse, wherein the compensating is based on the receiving the opt out indication.
12. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:modifying s first metaverse and s second metaverse to form a destination metaverse including selected features of the first metaverse and the second metaverse according to merging rules;facilitating interaction of a first avatar and a second avatar in an immersive environment of the destination metaverse;determining permanence rules for a plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse; andterminating the destination metaverse, according to permanence rules, responsive to a predetermined condition.
11. A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
identifying a first metaverse for merging with a second metaverse;
modifying the first metaverse and the second metaverse to form a destination metaverse, the destination metaverse including selected features of the first metaverse and the second metaverse;
facilitating interaction of a first avatar and a second avatar in an immersive environment of the destination metaverse;
determining permanence rules for one or more objects in the destination metaverse; and
terminating the destination metaverse, wherein the terminating the destination metaverse occurs in response to a predetermined condition and wherein the terminating the destination metaverse occurs according to the permanence rules.
18. A method, comprising:modifying, by a processing system including a processor, a first metaverse and a second metaverse to form a destination metaverse including selected features of the first metaverse and the second metaverse and facilitating interactions between a first avatar and a second avatar in an immersive environment of the destination metaverse;determining, by the processing system, permanence rules for a plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse; andterminating, by the processing system, the destination metaverse, according to the permanence rules, responsive to a predetermined condition.
17. A method, comprising:
identifying, by a processing system including a processor, a first metaverse for merging with a second metaverse;
modifying, by the processing system, the first metaverse and the second metaverse to form a destination metaverse, the destination metaverse including selected features of the first metaverse and the second metaverse;
facilitating, by the processing system, interaction of a first avatar and a second avatar in an immersive environment of the destination metaverse;
determining, by the processing system, permanence rules for one or more objects in the destination metaverse; and
terminating, by the processing system, the destination metaverse, wherein the terminating the destination metaverse occurs in response to a predetermined condition and wherein the terminating the destination metaverse occurs according to the permanence rules.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, 19-20 recites similar matter as claim 2-9, 11-21 of Patent US 12236548 B2 and are rejected for the same reason.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuster (US Pub 2013/0047217 A1) in view of Surjo-Subagio (US Patent 10086288 B1)
As to claim 1, Shuster discloses a device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Shuster, ¶0368), the operations comprising:
identifying a first metaverse (¶0117, “Worlds servers 10 provide 2-dimensional and/or 3-dimensional virtual worlds services, such as hosting avatars and maintaining spaces and objects with which avatars can interact.” Virtual world is a metaverse.);
identifying a second metaverse (¶0119, “The transfer of control of the avatar from the original worlds server 10 to third party worlds server 80 may be termed a “Boundary Event.”” ¶0120, “protects the value of end user possessions, protects the integrity of areas operated by the receiving worlds server, and otherwise make possible the exchange of users, data, objects, and other elements between environments that would otherwise be incompatible or otherwise difficult to make interoperable.”);
(¶0134, ‘the process of transit between worlds includes a translation or modification of the user's properties from the properties appropriate for the first world (e.g., the world of departure) to properties appropriate for the second world (e.g., the world of entry).” ¶0135, “An aspect of the technology involves mapping avatars or objects in one world or theme to corresponding avatars or objects in another world or theme.” ¶0136, “The mapping may be set according to heuristic or other analysis of properties of avatars or objects. It may also be accomplished through express user preferences or preferences or rules set by one or both of the worlds involved.” ¶0147, “an avatar may be associated with characteristics, such as possessed items, appearance features, personality features, social relations, and so on. In moving between worlds or other locations, the avatar may have those characteristics automatically transferred. In some embodiments, those characteristics may furthermore be translated or converted to be appropriate to the destination location.”);
interacting with a plurality of avatars to create an immersive experience in the destination metaverse (¶0182, “an avatar interacts with a virtual world.” ¶0202, “one may create a scene arranged to appear like a virtual tennis court, and it may be desirable for pairs of tennis players to be provided distinct copies of the scene rather than making all players use the same virtual space.” ¶0203, “avatars waiting to play poker may be automatically transported to the poker room when eight avatars have signed up for the table.”);
determining permanence rules for a plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse (¶0161, “an avatar's characteristics may only temporarily be converted while the avatar is present in the world, and the original characteristics may be restored when the avatar leaves the world. In such a case, accounting for value changes may be unnecessary.”); and
terminating the destination metaverse responsive to a predetermined condition according to the permanence rules (¶0181, “there may be instances where the user desires to revert back to a prior state upon occurrence of an event. For example, upon leaving space world, an avatar may wish to revert to the state the avatar was in upon entering space world.” ¶0296, “it may be desired for a coffee shop scene to be cleaned up when all the avatars have left (or all the avatars other than the shop staff have left). Then, the region may revert (in whole or in part, depending on the instructions each object has or the instructions the objects inherit from other objects or the region) to a “clean,” previously held, or other state.”).
Shuster does not explicitly disclose merging the first metaverse and the second metaverse.
Surjo-Subagio teaches merging the first metaverse and the second metaverse (Surjo-Subagio, abstract, “one or more forked or other separate content item sessions may be merged together to form a merged content item session. In some examples, conflicts between merged content item sessions may be identified and resolved based, at least in part, on input from administrators.” Col 3, lines 25-45, “one or more forked or other separate content item sessions may be merged together to form a merged content item session. A merged content item session may, for example, include at least part of the persistence data from each of the separate content item sessions. In some examples, separate content item sessions that are being merged may be compared with one another to determine one or more conflicts, such as inconsistent rules, inconsistent use of resources, virtual locations, and other conflicts. When conflicts between the separate content item sessions are detected, a number of strategies may be employed to resolve such conflicts.”).
Shuster and Surjo-Subagio are considered to be analogous art because all pertain to graphic content. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shuster with the features of “merging the first metaverse and the second metaverse” as taught by Surjo-Subagio. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order that separate content item sessions may be merged together to form a merged content item session (Surjo-Subagio, Col 3, lines 25-45.)
As to claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise determining the merging rules for the destination metaverse by resolving conflicts between first defining information associated with the first metaverse and second defining information associated with the second metaverse (Shuster, ¶0136, “The mapping may be set according to heuristic or other analysis of properties of avatars or objects. It may also be accomplished through express user preferences or preferences or rules set by one or both of the worlds involved.”.¶0139, “Just as a sword in one world may be a gun in another, without losing its global status as an object of type “weapon-personal-powerful,” for example, so too may an avatar remain the same avatar type while displaying characteristics appropriate to the world it is then inhabiting. For example, an avatar within Virtual Vancouver World 120 may move into Car World 170. If Car World 170 is defined as only having cars as avatars, the avatar may be automatically changed into a car. Alternatively, the user may be warned that the avatar is about to be rendered as a car and asked for permission before continuing the transition. Items that are inappropriate to the new avatar rendering (for example, the avatar's car from Virtual Vancouver World 120 which would make no sense as a possession of a car avatar in Car World 170) may be left on the server or otherwise not displayed in the new environment.”)
As to claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the resolving the conflicts between the first defining information and the second defining information comprises:
determining ownership of first objects in the first metaverse (Shuster, ¶0157, Table 1.);
determining ownership of second objects in the second metaverse (Shuster, ¶0163, “if an avatar exchanges a spacesuit for a coat of armor upon entering the medieval world, the spacesuit may become the possession of the medieval world, thus enabling the medieval world to sell or otherwise extract value from it.”” such a conversion and change of ownership may be in exchange for something of value (virtual or real), such as entry to the world.” ¶0165, “adds other default characteristics to the avatar, as necessary.”);
combining at least some of the first objects and at least some of the second objects in the destination metaverse to define the plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse (Shuster, ¶0159, “the object may be mapped to one of a plurality of user or operator selected like or unlike objects (such as a conversion of a sword into a plowshare), or certain objects may be automatically converted into a like or unlike object.” ¶0171, “Two worlds may have an agreement that certain items or characteristics are convertible, so that those characteristics may be exchanged. For example, the space world and the medieval world may have an agreement that laser guns of a particular type may be exchanged with broadswords of a particular type.” ¶0164, “an avatar with a hat, a shirt, and a sword where the hat is unaffected, the shirt may be temporarily affected, and the sword may be permanently affected, the hat may appear (or be highlighted) white, the shirt yellow, and the sword red.” ¶0170, “the computer system identifies one characteristic of an avatar being processed during a conversion procedure such as that described with respect to FIG. 4. The characteristic may be drawn from the global state identifying the avatar's characteristics. At block 502, the computer system determines whether there is a local modification to that characteristic. A local modification may be a modification applicable to the specific world and stored with that world's local state, such as with the oxygen tank and lost item examples described previously. If there is such a local state modification, then that local state modification is applied at block 503.”); and
specifying ownership of the plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse (Shuster, ¶0120, “protects the value of end user possessions” ¶0135, “in a realistic world intended to track real world properties, a tall human male avatar might possess a motorcycle and a gun. When transiting to the Sword Fight World 140, the possession/avatar mapping system may determine that a tall human male with a motorcycle is equivalent to a tall human knight with a horse (e.g., equivalent to the motorcycle owned in the realistic world) and a sword (equivalent to the gun owned in the realistic world).” ¶0140, “objects with correspondence to the new avatar may be transformed, possibly automatically, according to rules set by the user, the operator of the system, the operator of the world, and/or operators of other worlds. In this example, a human avatar with a fancy watch and fancy shoes may see the watch turn into a fancy car-mounted clock and the shoes into fancy tires when moving into Car World 170. In some embodiments, clothing and items with aesthetic elements may retain an aesthetic theme, so a human avatar with red clothes, for example, might transform into a car avatar with red paint when moving from Virtual Vancouver World 120 to Car World 170.” ¶0147, “The transfer protocol may also involve transfer and/or conversion of items and/or characteristics of the avatar, as shown at block 308. As explained in detail below, an avatar may be associated with characteristics, such as possessed items, appearance features, personality features, social relations, and so on. In moving between worlds or other locations, the avatar may have those characteristics automatically transferred. In some embodiments, those characteristics may furthermore be translated or converted to be appropriate to the destination location. For example, if the destination location has certain rules about required and/or permitted possessions, and the avatar has a possession that is not allowed in the new world, then the avatar's possession may be exchanged, converted, altered, replaced, removed, or otherwise affected.” ¶0151, “avatars may be associated with characteristics, such as possessions, appearance features, personality features, and so on.” ¶0166, “The local state may be used by a world to maintain information pertinent to the particular world but not to the global avatar state. For example, the local state may maintain information about characteristics specific to the world. Characteristics may be updated at block 410 by being added, removed, or modified.” ¶0177, “These characteristics may be stored as possessions 608 in the virtual world.” ¶0178, “These modifications may be maintained in data structure 610, which includes information on attribute modifications 611 and possession and other characteristic modifications 612.”).
As to claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise:
detecting an interaction among a first destination object and a second destination object of the plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse; and determining, according to the rules for the destination metaverse, an effect of the interaction (Shuster, ¶0164, “an avatar with a hat, a shirt, and a sword where the hat is unaffected, the shirt may be temporarily affected, and the sword may be permanently affected, the hat may appear (or be highlighted) white, the shirt yellow, and the sword red.” ¶0187, “if the avatar's broadsword from above was bent or chipped during a fight, a corresponding change to the avatar's laser gun in global state may be made. An identical change may not be appropriate: in this example, a chip in a laser gun will likely not render the laser gun less functional, whereas a chip in a broadsword may decrease functionality. Accordingly, changes to global state may be made through a mapping process as well, as defined by the virtual world and/or the service provider. The changes may be based on attributes of characteristics as described previously. For example, a chip in a broadsword may be interpreted as a decrease in an “power” attribute of a “weapon”-class item, so a corresponding decrease in the “power” attribute of the laser gun may be made to global state (for example, making the laser gun fire shorter blasts).” ¶0204, “As avatars interact with an instance of a scene, those avatars may cause changes to the contained items, appearance, and so on. Such changes may or may not be reflected back to the original scene, possibly depending on the configuration of the scene.” ¶0210, “an avatar may acquire a pencil lying on the ground in a virtual world, by executing a “take” action on the pencil.” ¶0295, “a virtual world may include multiple instances of a scene, with each instance including objects and other characteristics based on an initial layout of the scene. As avatars interact with the instances, those objects and characteristics may be modified, for example by being moved, taken, destroyed, altered, added, or otherwise manipulated. As a result, an avatar may enter a first instance of a scene and then enter a second instance of the same scene, leading to a potentially disconcerting appearance that the same “scene” has drastically changed. Furthermore, in some embodiments, instances of scenes may be overlaid through semitransparent displays or other mechanisms, for example so that an avatar in one instance of a scene may see all the avatars in other instances simultaneously. If there are substantial differences between the objects of the scene, then the discrepancies may be visible to avatars and may detract from their experiences.”).
As to claim 5, claim 4 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise:
representing the first destination object and the second destination object in the destination metaverse according to a first context for a first user in the immersive experience in the destination metaverse; and representing the first destination object and the second destination object of the plurality of objects in the destination metaverse according to a second context for a second user in the immersive experience in the destination metaverse, wherein the second context is different from the first context (Shuster, ¶0278, “to enable the user to join an instance where other users of interest, such as the users' friends, are present.” ¶0295, “a virtual world may include multiple instances of a scene, with each instance including objects and other characteristics based on an initial layout of the scene. As avatars interact with the instances, those objects and characteristics may be modified, for example by being moved, taken, destroyed, altered, added, or otherwise manipulated. As a result, an avatar may enter a first instance of a scene and then enter a second instance of the same scene, leading to a potentially disconcerting appearance that the same “scene” has drastically changed. Furthermore, in some embodiments, instances of scenes may be overlaid through semitransparent displays or other mechanisms, for example so that an avatar in one instance of a scene may see all the avatars in other instances simultaneously. If there are substantial differences between the objects of the scene, then the discrepancies may be visible to avatars and may detract from their experiences.”).
As to claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise identifying the conflicts between the first defining information associated with the first metaverse and the second defining information associated with the second metaverse (Shuster, ¶0251, “the conversion of objects from one type to another and/or conversions at boundary events, and/or entrance to an area may provoke a script compatibility check to determine whether introduction of an object may conflict with another script or scripted object.”).
As to claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise compensating a user associated with the first metaverse for elements of the first metaverse merged into the destination metaverse, wherein the compensating is based on receiving an opt out indication from the user (Shuster, ¶0161, “the avatar's original characteristic may be worth more or less than the mapped characteristic provided. As appropriate, then, the system may charge or refund an account associated with the avatar, as shown at block 407. In an embodiment, the charge or refund is made only if the conversion of the characteristic is permanent.” ¶0163, “such a conversion may occur over time, so that the user's interest in the item declines as time passes while the user is in the world.” ¶0172, “This conversion procedure may account for the attributes of the characteristics being converted, the attributes of various permitted characteristics, virtual currency values of the characteristics, supply and/or demand for the characteristics, and so on” ¶0191, “the system proposes an exchange of characteristics to the user of the avatar. The proposal may be displayed as a user interface showing the characteristics to be received, the value required, the characteristics to be forfeited, and so on. In an embodiment, multiple options for exchange may be presented to the avatar. In an embodiment, the avatar may be presented with a selection of items for exchanging, so that formation of a complete proposal package may not be required.” ¶0192, “the avatar's account may be charged or credited as appropriate.”).
As to claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise automatically negotiating the permanence rules for the plurality of destination objections in destination metaverse (Shuster, ¶0151, “the system may enable an automated conversion process, such as that shown in FIG. 4.” ¶0203, “When an avatar locates a scene and attempts to enter that scene, the service provider may determine whether to create a new instance for that avatar or to place that avatar into an existing instance. The determination may be based on rules specified for the scene. For example, some scenes may be configured to allow a maximum number of avatars per instance (for example, a tennis scene may allow up to two players per instance). New instances may also be created based on time intervals, avatar user requests, availability of objects within each instance, and so on. In one embodiment, an environment may automatically change, or the avatars may be automatically transported, when a threshold event takes place. For example, avatars waiting to play poker may be automatically transported to the poker room when eight avatars have signed up for the table. In another example, a prospective tennis player may wait in a waiting room until another tennis player arrives and the waiting room is transformed into a tennis court.” ¶0204, “a newly created instance may be arranged to have the same contained items, the same appearance, the same size, and so on, with respect to the scene.”).
As to claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise:automatically negotiating terms for termination of the destination metaverse; and destroying the destination metaverse according to the terms for termination of the destination metaverse (Shuster, ¶0248, “This may be useful for an administrator or leader of the instance, to rearrange or clean up the instance.” ¶0296, “it may be desired for a coffee shop scene to be cleaned up when all the avatars have left (or all the avatars other than the shop staff have left). Then, the region may revert (in whole or in part, depending on the instructions each object has or the instructions the objects inherit from other objects or the region) to a “clean,” previously held, or other state.” ¶0297, “instances of scenes include functionality to automatically “clean up” objects and other characteristics to correspond with the original layout of the scene. The cleanup procedures may be configured, as described below, to appear natural or minimize the visibility of the procedures, so that the cleanup procedures do not appear abnormal within the virtual reality environment.”).
As to claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the terminating the destination metaverse further comprises destroying a first destination object of the plurality of destination objects according to the permanence rules and returning a second destination object of the plurality of destination objects to a source metaverse, and wherein the source metaverse is one of the first metaverse or the second metaverse (Shuster, ¶0248, “This may be useful for an administrator or leader of the instance, to rearrange or clean up the instance.” ¶0296, “it may be desired for a coffee shop scene to be cleaned up when all the avatars have left (or all the avatars other than the shop staff have left). Then, the region may revert (in whole or in part, depending on the instructions each object has or the instructions the objects inherit from other objects or the region) to a “clean,” previously held, or other state.” ¶0297, “instances of scenes include functionality to automatically “clean up” objects and other characteristics to correspond with the original layout of the scene. The cleanup procedures may be configured, as described below, to appear natural or minimize the visibility of the procedures, so that the cleanup procedures do not appear abnormal within the virtual reality environment.”).
As to claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the first metaverse comprises a new metaverse and wherein the second metaverse comprises a branded metaverse, and wherein the operations further comprise: automatically negotiating an agreement defining how brands of the branded metaverse will be used and will appear on branded objects in the destination metaverse; and displaying one or more brands on the branded objects to a plurality of users in the immersive experience in the destination metaverse (Shuster, ¶0311, “Object clouds may be displayed at various locations within the virtual world system. For example, avatars may view object clouds while in transit between virtual worlds. Object clouds for a location may be presented on virtual trains or buses headed to that location. Virtual travel agencies may display object clouds of different locations, as advertisements for those locations. Additionally, object clouds may be represented in 2-dimensional views, so that users without browsers capable of rendering 3-dimensional views are able to obtain similar information. Object clouds may also display information about individuals: an avatar may view an object cloud of all of the avatar's possessions and/or another avatar's possessions, for example. Such object clouds may be useful in playing role-playing games, so that the avatar may quickly determine what items are available to the avatar.”).
As to claim 12, the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:modifying s first metaverse and s second metaverse to form a destination metaverse including selected features of the first metaverse and the second metaverse according to merging rules;facilitating interaction of a first avatar and a second avatar in an immersive environment of the destination metaverse;determining permanence rules for a plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse; andterminating the destination metaverse, according to permanence rules, responsive to a predetermined condition (See claim 1 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 13, claim 12 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise: presenting an immersive experience in the destination metaverse to a first user, interacting with the immersive experience via a first user device; and presenting the immersive experience in the destination metaverse to a second user interacting with the first user and the immersive experience via a second user device (Shuster, ¶0203, “avatars waiting to play poker may be automatically transported to the poker room when eight avatars have signed up for the table. In another example, a prospective tennis player may wait in a waiting room until another tennis player arrives and the waiting room is transformed into a tennis court.” ¶0278, “enable the user to join an instance where other users of interest, such as the users' friends, are present.”)
As to claim 14, claim 12 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise determining the merging rules for the destination metaverse by resolving conflicts between first defining information associated with the first metaverse and second defining information associated with the second metaverse (See claim 2 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 15, claim 12 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise: identifying first objects of the first metaverse; identifying second objects of the second metaverse; translating the first objects or the second objects for inclusion in the destination metaverse; modifying appearance of the first objects or the second objects for inclusion in the destination metaverse; and modifying functionality of the first objects or the second objects for inclusion in the destination metaverse (See claim 1 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 16, claim 12 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise: identifying first rules and policies that define the first metaverse; identifying second rules and policies that define the second metaverse; identifying conflicts between the first rules and policies and the second rules and policies; and automatically negotiating a resolution of the conflicts between the first rules and policies and the second rules and policies to form destination metaverse rules and policies (See claim 6-8 for detailed analysis.)..
As to claim 17, claim 12 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses the operations further comprise: identifying first virtual physics of the first metaverse; identifying second virtual physics of the second metaverse; identifying conflicts between the first virtual physics and the second virtual physics; and automatically negotiating a resolution of the conflicts between the first virtual physics and the second virtual physics to form destination metaverse physics (See claim 6-8 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 18, the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses a method, comprising:modifying, by a processing system including a processor, a first metaverse and a second metaverse to form a destination metaverse including selected features of the first metaverse and the second metaverse and facilitating interactions between a first avatar and a second avatar in an immersive environment of the destination metaverse;determining, by the processing system, permanence rules for a plurality of destination objects in the destination metaverse; andterminating, by the processing system, the destination metaverse, according to the permanence rules, responsive to a predetermined condition (See claim 1 for detailed analysis.)..
As to claim 19, claim 18 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses identifying, by the processing system, a metaverse template; and customizing, by the processing system, the metaverse template for merging to form the destination metaverse (Shuster, ¶0202, “it may be desirable to have a single scene 1005 available but have avatars enter different copies of that scene. For example, one may create a scene arranged to appear like a virtual tennis court, and it may be desirable for pairs of tennis players to be provided distinct copies of the scene rather than making all players use the same virtual space. Such copies are implemented by instances 1006. An instance represents a running version of a scene, and avatars interact within instances of scenes.” ¶0204, “As avatars interact with an instance of a scene, those avatars may cause changes to the contained items, appearance, and so on. Such changes may or may not be reflected back to the original scene, possibly depending on the configuration of the scene. Additionally, in an embodiment, new instances may be based on existing instances, rather than being based on the original scenes.”).
As to claim 20, claim 18 is incorporated and the combination of Shuster and Surjo-Subagio discloses capturing, by the processing system, a snapshot of the first metaverse at a moment in time; and customizing, by the processing system, the snapshot of the first metaverse for merging to form the destination metaverse (Shuster, ¶0202, “Such copies are implemented by instances 1006. An instance represents a running version of a scene, and avatars interact within instances of scenes.” ¶0203, “When an avatar locates a scene and attempts to enter that scene, the service provider may determine whether to create a new instance for that avatar or to place that avatar into an existing instance. The determination may be based on rules specified for the scene. For example, some scenes may be configured to allow a maximum number of avatars per instance (for example, a tennis scene may allow up to two players per instance). New instances may also be created based on time intervals, avatar user requests, availability of objects within each instance, and so on. In one embodiment, an environment may automatically change, or the avatars may be automatically transported, when a threshold event takes place. For example, avatars waiting to play poker may be automatically transported to the poker room when eight avatars have signed up for the table. In another example, a prospective tennis player may wait in a waiting room until another tennis player arrives and the waiting room is transformed into a tennis court.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamilton (US Pub 2011/0113018 A1) teaches merging disparate virtual universes.
Janzer et al. (US Pub 2018/0122139 A1) teaches portable and persistent virtual identity across applications and platforms.
Da Costa et al. (US Pub 2014/0229865 A1) teaches multiple users to collaboratively edit 3-D assets in real-time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7951. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PST Mid-day flex.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on 571-272-7761. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights