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
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
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.
Independent Claims 1, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite calculate a reward to be paid to a user on the basis of a fact that advertisement information attached to an item carried by the user has been visually recognized by another user and a fact that there has been an operation on information related to the item.. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, an avatar, a link. These are considered generic. The use of VR/metaverse and avatars is presently considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-8 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. The use of VR/metaverse and avatars is presently considered generic. The robot is not positively recited and not functional. These dependent additional elements are considered generic. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blatchley (20090144105).
Claims 1, 9, 10. Blatchley discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Fig. 3);
calculate a reward to be paid to a user on the basis of a fact that advertisement information attached to an item carried by an avatar of the user has been visually recognized by another user (Fig. 1, item 122; Fig. 2; also for visually recogonize and reward see “[14]… in the virtual world, the viewing user refers to the viewing user's persona that views the advertising on the advertising user's persona, given that the viewing user's persona has a line of sight that sees the advertising user's persona…the brokering virtual advertisement tool tracks exposure of the advertisement displayed on an online persona…the brokering virtual advertisement tool awards (on a periodic basis) an advertising user a benefit for advertising of advertisements on the online persona of the advertising user. In an embodiment, the benefit received by the advertising user comprises at least one of: money, coupons, discounts or merchandise” also for reward/award see benefit at “[15]… The virtual world user could receive more payment or benefit for each piece of customization that he/she puts an advertisement on. The amount of payment/benefit to the user could be based in proportion to the amount of visibility he/she provides in the virtual world. For example if the user walks around a lot (gets high mileage) he would be paid more. If the person is seen more by other users, they are paid more (this could be calculated based on point of users observations).” And also claim 5) and a fact that there has been an operation on link information related to the item (“[3]… In an embodiment, displaying step further includes clicking, by a respective viewing user, a logo corresponding to an advertisement displayed on the respective persona associated with the respective virtual space, such that, the respective viewing user is transported to a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) address that provides additional information or additional advertising associated with the logo corresponding to the advertisement displayed on the persona.”; “[14]… Further, in an alternative embodiment, a viewing user being shown an advertisement on the online persona belonging to an advertising user, may be given the ability to click or drill down on an advertised logo, such that, the viewing user may be shown an expanded product or service specific page relating to the advertisement shown or the viewing user may be directed to another web site, such as, a virtual company store.”).
Claim 2. Blatchley further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: in a case where the advertisement information has been visually recognized by the another user, present the link information or change a display form of an item with the link information incorporated therein (see link/URL citations and quotes at [3, 14] preceding).
Claim 4. Blatchley further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: analyze a behavior of an avatar of the another user or of the another user and detect that the advertisement information has been visually recognized by the another user (see line of sight and see at [14], see look and see at [15] and looking at [24]).
Claim 5. Blatchley further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: present, to the user, information indicating an area or a time period in which the advertisement information has been visually recognized (see “tracking time per viewing user” at [3]).
Claim 6. Blatchley further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: evaluate an impression that the avatar of the user gives to the another user (see paid more and proportion at [15] and tracking time at [3]) and distribute the item to the user in a case where an evaluation value is high (see benefit and merchandise as benefit at [14] and this can be given in proportion or as paid more as seen at [15]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley (20090144105).
Claim 3. Blatchley further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate the reward on the basis of the number of times the advertisement information has been visually recognized and the number of times an operation has been performed on the link information (see citations to [15] and claim 5 preceding), and a weighting coefficient to calculate the reward from the number of times the advertisement information has been visually recognized (see calculate and seen more and “paid more” at [15]) and a weighting coefficient to calculate the reward from the number of times an operation has been performed on the link information (see directed to website at [14]; see calculate and fee at [14, 15]). Blatchley does not explicitly disclose “is smaller than” or a weighting of one type of exposure or viewing user action as paid more than another. However, Blatchley discloses the different viewing user actions (preceding) and also further discloses calculating the ad fee [14, 15] and calculating amount benefit in proprotion [15] and calculating fee and “paid more” at [15]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Blatchley’s calculating a fee in proportion and paying more to Blatchley’s different exposure responses such that different exposure responses can be paid in differing proportions or paid more. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better compensate for ad response and ad value.
Claim 8. Blatchley further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine on the basis of a motion of the avatar (see tracking time at [3] and see line of sight and see at [14], see look and see at [15] and looking at [24]; also see “[24]… to change in accordance with who is looking at the online persona.”), and calculate the reward in a case where the user is not the robot (see sports and Nike and also Gap and Circuit City at [15], so the user profile is known and is known to be an actual user and not a robot). Blactchley does not explicitly disclose whether or not the user is a robot based on motion. However, Blatchley discloses determining user profile and user identity based on use motion like looking and then that particular user profile being correlated and a particular ad shown for that user [14, 15, 24]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Blatchley’s ad based on user motion and user confirmed as a particular user to Blatchley’s identifying a user for targeting. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better identify and target a user.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley (20090144105) in view of Davis (20130159217).
Claim 7. Blatchley further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine whether or not the link information is a link to an inappropriate site (Taste or likes/dislikes at [14]). Blatchley does not explicitly disclose a link to an inappropriate site and provide an authentication mark to the item in a case where the link information is not the link to the inappropriate site. However, Davis discloses a virtual world [58] and an age appropriateness rating for URL [119]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Davis VR world and URL appropriateness rating to Blatchley’s VR world and links that correlate with taste/like/dislike. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better present appropriate/relevant links.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) note Global Dossier and nothing available at search;
c) Holbrook, Publicove discloses marking content as appropriate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 1/29/26