DETAILED ACTION
The communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-10, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 26 February 2025 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed towards a system. Claim 9 is directed towards a method. Claim 10 is directed towards a manufacture (computer-readable medium). Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to:
acquire avatar information indicating attributes of an avatar for each of a plurality of avatars
and acquire content provider information indicating attributes of a content provider for each of a plurality of content providers;
estimate a degree of relevance between the avatar and the content provider on the basis of the avatar information and the content provider information;
receive, from a user corresponding to the avatar, a consent to disclose personal information of the user to the content provider with the degree of relevance with the avatar of not less than a threshold value;
and disclose the personal information of the user to the content provider in a case where the consent reception unit receives the consent.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of disclosing personal information to a content provider upon matching a user with the content provider and receiving the user’s consent which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The Remaining Claims: The additional independent claims fail to recite any additional elements beyond those identified above except “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (claim 10). The dependent claims recite fail to recite any additional elements beyond those already identified except “an interest degree estimation model that has performed learning” (claim 5).
The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: attributes of the avatar (claims 1, 2); details of the matching of a user with a content provider (claims 3-5); details of rewarding for the user’s consent (claims 6-8). Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As for the additional elements of: “at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As for the additional element(s) of: “an interest degree estimation model that has performed learning”. The use of machine learning or artificial intelligence, without providing details of how the models themselves are improved, represents mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The ordered combination of these additional elements amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As for the additional element(s): “an interest degree estimation model that has performed learning”. Applying "machine learning" at a high level of generality represents performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Machine learning is well-understood, routine and conventional as exemplified in "Approaches to Machine Learning" by Langley et al. (Langley, P. and Carbonell, J.G. (1984), Approaches to machine learning. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 35: 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350509 (Year: 1984))
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, 365(c), or 371 is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the consent reception unit" in “and disclose the personal information of the user to the content provider in a case where the consent reception unit receives the consent”; Claim 9 contains a similar recitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims have been examined as if the “processing apparatus” (claim 1) or “at least one processor” (claim 9) receives the consent. Examiner recommends amending the claims to make clear the intended recipient of the content.
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
* Hwang (Pub. #: KR 20230147312 A) discloses an avatar system that has avatars for personal users and business users that has disparate levels of sharing of user information based on preferences of a user.
* Falchuk et al., in “The Social Metaverse: Battle for Privacy”, discusses the state of privacy protection and issues of privacy in the Metaverse (i.e., a virtual world using avatars).
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miyazaki (Pub. #: JP2010092364 A) in view of
Matthews et al. (Pub. #: US 2018/0184168 A1).
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10:
These claims are analogous with different representative embodiments: claim 1 is a system embodiment, claim 9 is a method embodiment, and claim 10 is a computer-readable medium embodiment. Bravo teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least 0017-0020, 0061 for performing the steps:
acquire avatar information indicating attributes of an avatar for each of a plurality of avatars
(Miyazaki discloses a database with information regarding user id's and associated virtual items in at least 0032-0035, and 0037.)
and acquire content provider information indicating attributes of a content provider for each of a plurality of content providers;
estimate a degree of relevance between the avatar and the content provider on the basis of the avatar information and the content provider information;
(Miyazaki discloses determining an advertisement match between an advertiser (i.e., a content provider) and a user based on the user's information as determined from the user's avatar in at least 0043-0047 and 0050-0052. Examiner notes the example of matching an advertisement and a user based on "Western".)
receive, from a user corresponding to the avatar, a consent to disclose personal information of the user to the content provider with the degree of relevance with the avatar of not less than a threshold value;
and disclose the personal information of the user to the content provider in a case where the consent reception unit receives the consent.
As for, "and acquire content provider information indicating attributes of a content provider for each of a plurality of content providers;", "receive, from a user corresponding to the avatar, a consent to disclose personal information of the user to the content provider with the degree of relevance with the avatar of not less than a threshold value;", and "and disclose the personal information of the user to the content provider in a case where the consent reception unit receives the consent.": Miyazaki does not appear to specify granting consent to disclose personal information on a per content provider basis and based on a threshold of matching. However, Matthews discloses a per advertiser consent with a reward for sharing in at least Figure 2, Figure 11, Figure 14. Matthews discloses matching user information to advertisement information based on a threshold amount and requesting further user information based thereon in at least 0072-0077.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the avatar/metaverse content distribution system of Miyazaki with the techniques of matching users with content providers and requesting consent to share further information of the user with the content provider as taught by Matthews. Motivation to combine Miyazaki with Matthews derives from the desire of content providers (i.e., advertisers) to best target users based on user information (Matthews: 0002-0003).
Claim(s) 2:
wherein the attributes of the avatar include an appearance of the avatar.
(Miyazaki discloses a database with information regarding user id's and associated virtual items in at least 0032-0035, and 0037. Miyazaki discloses that items of the avatar are worn in at least 0042, which corresponds to appearance of the avatar.)
Claim(s) 4:
wherein the estimating of the degree of relevance between the avatar and the content provider on the basis of the avatar information and the content provider information is estimating user information indicating attributes of a user corresponding to the avatar information on the basis of the avatar information and estimating the degree of relevance between the avatar and the content provider on the basis of the user information and the content provider information.
(Miyazaki discloses determining an advertisement match between an advertiser (i.e., a content provider) and a user based on the user's information as determined from the user's avatar in at least 0043-0047 and 0050-0052. Examiner notes the example of matching an advertisement and a user based on "Western".)
Claim(s) 5:
wherein the estimating of the degree of relevance between the avatar and the content provider on the basis of the avatar information and the content provider information is estimating a degree of interest of the avatar in the content provider by inputting the avatar information and the content provider information to an interest degree estimation model that has performed learning to output a degree of interest when the avatar corresponding to the avatar information views content of the content provider information once the avatar information and the content provider information are input, and estimating the degree of relevance between the avatar and the content provider on the basis of the degree of interest.
(Miyazaki discloses determining an advertisement match between an advertiser (i.e., a content provider) and a user based on the user's information as determined from the user's avatar in at least 0043-0047 and 0050-0052. Examiner notes the example of matching an advertisement and a user based on "Western". Miyazaki discloses determining the interest of a user in at least 0017, 0023, and 0065.)
As for, "that has performed learning": Miyazaki does not appear to specify the use of a learning model used to perform the user interest matching. However, Matthews teaches a technique of applying machine learning to the user data in order to perform matching of the user with content providers in at least 0028 and 0160.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the avatar/metaverse content distribution system of Miyazaki with the techniques of matching users with content providers and requesting consent to share further information of the user with the content provider including using a machine learning model to do so as taught by Matthews. Motivation to combine Miyazaki with Matthews derives from the desire of content providers (i.e., advertisers) to best target users based on user information (Matthews: 0002-0003).
Claim(s) 6:
wherein a plurality of disclosure levels defining disclosure ranges are set in personal information of the user, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to receive the consent for each of the plurality of disclosure levels from the user.
Miyazaki does not appear to specify granting consent to disclose personal information on a per content provider basis and based a plurality of disclosure levels. However, Matthews discloses a per advertiser consent with a reward for sharing in at least Figure 2, Figure 11, Figure 14. Matthews discloses matching user information to advertisement information based on a threshold amount and requesting further user information on a granular-level basis in at least 0072-0077.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the avatar/metaverse content distribution system of Miyazaki with the techniques of matching users with content providers and requesting consent to share further information of the user with the content provider as taught by Matthews. Motivation to combine Miyazaki with Matthews derives from the desire of content providers (i.e., advertisers) to best target users based on user information (Matthews: 0002-0003).
Claim(s) 7:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to grant a right of the user to receive a reward from the content provider to the user in a case where the consent is received.
Miyazaki does not appear to specify granting consent to disclose personal information on a per content provider basis and based a plurality of disclosure levels. However, Matthews discloses a per advertiser consent with a reward for sharing in at least Figure 2, Figure 11, Figure 14. Matthews discloses matching user information to advertisement information based on a threshold amount and requesting further user information on a granular-level basis in at least 0072-0077.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the avatar/metaverse content distribution system of Miyazaki with the techniques of matching users with content providers and requesting consent to share further information of the user with the content provider as taught by Matthews. Motivation to combine Miyazaki with Matthews derives from the desire of content providers (i.e., advertisers) to best target users based on user information (Matthews: 0002-0003).
Claim(s) 8:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to grant a right of the user to receive a reward from the content provider to the user in accordance with a disclosure level of consent which has been received, in a case where the consent is received.
Miyazaki does not appear to specify granting consent to disclose personal information on a per content provider basis and based a plurality of disclosure levels. However, Matthews discloses a per advertiser consent with a reward for sharing in at least Figure 2, Figure 11, Figure 14. Matthews discloses matching user information to advertisement information based on a threshold amount and requesting further user information on a granular-level basis in at least 0072-0077.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the avatar/metaverse content distribution system of Miyazaki with the techniques of matching users with content providers and requesting consent to share further information of the user with the content provider as taught by Matthews. Motivation to combine Miyazaki with Matthews derives from the desire of content providers (i.e., advertisers) to best target users based on user information (Matthews: 0002-0003).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miyazaki (Pub. #: JP2010092364 A) in view of
Matthews et al. (Pub. #: US 2018/0184168 A1) in view of
Kappe et al., in “Automatically Detecting Points of Interest and Social Networks from Tracking Positions of Avatars in a Virtual World”.
Claim(s) 3:
wherein the attributes of the avatar include content of utterances or content of chatting of the avatar.
Mathews teaches a user input comprising "speech" of the user in at least 0058. Miyazaki, in view of Matthews, does not appear to specify that the user attributes comprise "content of utterances or content of chatting of the avatar". However, Kappe teaches a technique of using the content of an avatar's language to classify the avatar in at least sections 2.1 and 3.2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the avatar/metaverse content distribution system of Miyazaki, in view of Matthews, with the gathering of avatar utterance information as taught by Kappe. Motivation to combine Miyazaki, in view of Matthews, with Kappe in order to optimize the distribution of content (i.e., advertisements) based on as much information regarding a user as possible (Matthews: 0002-0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. 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.
/SCOTT SNIDER/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights