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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7 July 2026 has been entered. The following is in reply to the Amendments and Arguments.
Claims amended: 1-5, 9, 10
Claims cancelled: none
Claims added: none
Claims currently pending: 1-10
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in “Status of Application” section, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims and the amendments to the claims. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “Prong Two of Step 2A” section, lists a subset of the newly amended claim language found in claim 1. Applicant argues that the claims now recite a “technical improvement” because the claimed invention requires “a dedicated device comprising a particular assembly of distinct components configured to perform a specific set of operations which, together, realize a substantial technical improvement to the functioning of the device”. This argument is unpersuasive as the claims are directed towards processing information pertaining to a user and sharing information based thereon. The information exists without a substantial tie to a technical environment. While it may be normal for a computer engineer to refer to the improvement in the claimed as a technological improvement, improvements rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which merely applied using a general-purpose computer as a tool, such improvement are not improvements in technology for the purpose of performing a 101 analysis as required by MPEP 2106 (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”).
Applicant, in the “Step 2B” section, refers to the above rebutted argument and further argues that the claim “recites significantly more than any abstract idea”. As for the above reasons, this argument is unpersuasive in a similar manner.
Applicant, in the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section, argues that the newly amended claim language overcomes the previously cited references found in the previous Office action. Examiner notes that the independent claims have been heavily revised. The grounds of rejection presented herein utilizes the same prior art references but cites new paragraphs to support the newly amended emphasis on a “numerical relevance score” and to reflect the heavy revision. Applicant’s further arguments with respect to the previously applied prior art references are conclusory and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant does not present any arguments in support of the patentability of the dependent except to assert that the claims are patentable based on their dependence from the independent claim(s). Therefore, said dependent claims stand rejected under the grounds of rejection presented herein and no detailed rebuttal is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “An information processing apparatus comprising a memory storing: avatar information including a plurality of attribute parameters; and content information; and at least one processor configured to:”. This claim construction suggests that the “memory” stores “at least one processor”. It is believed that this is a type and that there is a colon missing after the word “comprising”. The claims have been examined with respect to 101 and the prior art using this interpretation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 a memory storing:
avatar information including a plurality of attribute parameters;
and content information;
and at least one processor configured to:
calculate a numerical relevance score based on the avatar information and the content provider information;
compare the numerical relevance score with a predetermined threshold;
in response to the numerical relevance score being equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold, receive, from a user, a consent signal indicating permission to disclose personal information;
and control transmission of the personal information to a content provider based on the consent signal.
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))
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.
* Bravo (Pub. #: US 2024/0346174 A1) discloses sharing user resources based on a matching between user connections.
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. Miyazaki teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least 0017-0020, 0061 for performing the steps:
avatar information including a plurality of attribute parameters; and content information;
(Miyazaki discloses a database with information regarding user id's and associated virtual items in at least 0032-0035, and 0037.)
and at least one processor configured to:
(Miyazaki teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least 0017-0020, 0061)
calculate a numerical relevance score based on 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".)
compare the numerical relevance score with a predetermined threshold;
in response to the numerical relevance score being equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold, receive, from a user, a consent signal indicating permission to disclose personal information;
and control transmission of the personal information to a content provider based on the consent signal.
As for, "numerical...score", "compare the numerical relevance score with a predetermined threshold", "in response to the numerical relevance score being equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold, receive, from a user, a consent signal indicating permission to disclose personal information;", and "and control transmission of the personal information to a content provider based on the consent signal": 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. Matthews further discloses that the matching user information is performed with numbers in at least 0005, and 0029-0031.
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 plurality of attributes of the avatar information include an appearance of an 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 calculating the numerical relevance score comprises estimating user information indicating attributes of the user corresponding to the avatar information on the basis of the avatar information and estimating a degree of relevance between an 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 calculating the numerical relevance score comprises estimating a degree of interest of an avatar in the content provider by inputting the avatar information and the content provider information into 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 plurality of attributes of the avatar information include content of utterances or content of chatting of an 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
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 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.
/S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights