DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-053500, filed on 03/28/2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 9 is directed to a "computer readable medium." Applicant describes a computer readable medium by giving an open-ended list on Paragraph [0052] of the specification: "the program can be stored and provided to a computer using any type of non-transitory computer readable media. Nontransitory computer readable media include any type of tangible storage media…The program may be provided to a computer using any
type of transitory computer readable media. Examples of transitory computer
readable media include electric signals, optical signals, and electromagnetic
waves" A "computer readable medium" is not explicitly or deliberately defined to include only the non-transitory embodiments listed on Paragraph [0052]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OG 212 (26 Jan 2010). See MPEP 2111.01. Signals are nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, and as such is nonstatutory natural phenomena. See, e.g., In re Nuitjen, Docket no. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept.20, 2007)(slip. op. at 18)("A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen's is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.' ... Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter."). Thus, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. (please correct in your template) 101 because, giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed "computer readable medium" encompasses non-statutory subject matter.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03)
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. (FP 7.30.05)
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) (Claim 3) is/are:
Wherein the action information acquisition unit acquires…
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. (FP 7.30.06)
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim(s) 3 recite the limitation " the action information acquisition unit" in page 1, line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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) 1-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyndman et al. (US 20100164956 A1, hereinafter Hyndman), in view of Bosworth et al. (US 20150186536 A1, hereinafter Bosworth).
Regarding Claim 1, Hyndman teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: (Hyndman, Paragraph [0077], "The functions described above may be implemented as one or more sets of program instructions that are stored in a computer readable memory and executed on one or more processors within on one or more computers."; [0033], "the user's attention may be monitored by user attention tracking function which may be implemented by the virtual environment servers 18 or implemented via a separate user attention tracking server 19”). acquire action information which is information regarding an action of an avatar viewing content in a virtual space (Hyndman, Paragraph [0030], "As Avatars move within the virtual environment, they will be presented with a two or three dimensional view of the environment. According to an embodiment of the invention, the place where the user focuses attention within the virtual environment may be tracked"; [0045], "As the user interacts with the virtual environment, the user will cause their Avatar to move within the virtual environment. This interaction may be tracked in relation to the known placement of the advertisement within the virtual environment <read on content> to determine how the user is interacting with the particular advertisement content"; it is noted the tracked Avatar movement/focal point in the virtual environment is action information regarding action of avatar viewing content in a virtual space) determine a degree of interest of a user corresponding to the avatar in the content on the basis of the action information (Hyndman, Paragraph [0048], "As the avatar moves about, the avatar will look at different facets of the virtual environment, which will be shown to the user. Based on what the Avatar is looking at, it is possible to infer the user's interest in a particular graphic object, aspect of a graphic object, or other feature <read on degree of interest ... on the basis of the action information>"), (Hyndman, Paragraph [0043], "the user's attention and other interaction with advertisements or sponsored products is monitored to determine whether the advertisement/product is viewed, if so what aspects are viewed, how long they are viewed and other aspects about how the user is looking at the graphic or physical object. The user's perception of the advertisement/object enables the user's reaction to be gauged to obtain feedback about the effectiveness and design of the object."). collect [[ attribute information and ]] the degree of interest of the user as reaction information (Hyndman, Paragraph [0057], "the coloration applied by the virtual brush is collected by the attention monitoring function for later analysis."), (Hyndman, Paragraph [0071], "Once the raw data relating to the user's perception of particular advertising content has been collected, it may be analyzed to provide feedback about the graphic object."; it is noted collected attention/reaction data corresponds to collecting the degree of interest as reaction information).
But Hyndman does not explicitly disclose [[ collect ]] attribute information [[ and the degree of interest of the user as reaction information ]] in a case where there is a consent of the user and collects the degree of interest as the reaction information in a case where there is no consent of the user.
However, Bosworth teaches collect attribute information and the degree of interest of the user as reaction information in a case where there is a consent of the user (Bosworth, Paragraph [0018], "When one of the consent indicators stored at the central facility indicates that the received monitoring data is associated with a user that has provided consent, examples disclosed herein store a first type of exposure indication at the central facility. When the first type of exposure indication is stored, the central facility of examples disclosed herein (1) credits the identified media with an exposure and (2) stores personally identifying information associated with the user (e.g., demographic information and/or bibliographic information) <read on attribute information> at the central facility in connection with the identified media."). collects the degree of interest as the reaction information in a case where there is no consent of the user (Bosworth, Paragraph [0018], "In contrast, when one of the consent indicators stored at the central facility indicates that the received monitoring data is associated with a user that has opted-out of monitoring, examples disclosed herein store a second, different type of exposure indication at the central facility. When the second type of exposure indication is stored, the central facility of examples disclosed herein (1) credits the identified media with an exposure and (2) prevents the personally identifying information associated with the user from being stored at the central facility in connection with the identified media."), (Bosworth, Paragraph [0045], "In contrast, the second type of exposure indication corresponding to the opted-out users tracked in the opted-out exposure database 210 is such that personally identifying information associated with the user is not stored (e.g., omitted from storage, prevented from being stored, restricted from being stored, destroyed, and/or prohibited from being stored) in connection with the media identified in the monitoring data”; it is noted for opted-out (no-consent) users, only the exposure indication (interest/attention) is stored without PII/attribute information).
Bosworth and Hyndman are analogous since both are in the field of monitoring users' exposure/attention to content (advertisements/media) and generating aggregate audience-reaction data. Hyndman provided a way of tracking avatar action/focal point in a virtual environment to gauge the user's degree of interest in content such as advertisements. Bosworth provided a way of enforcing user privacy preferences at a central facility by branching storage on a consent indicator: with-consent records store PII + exposure; without-consent records store only exposure indication. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the consent-gated dual-branch storage of Bosworth into the avatar attention-monitoring apparatus of Hyndman such that, when the virtual-environment attention-monitoring function of Hyndman collects reaction information (Avatar focal point / degree of interest in an advertisement or graphic object), the system stores PII/attribute information (e.g., demographics) alongside the degree-of-interest reaction only for users who have consented, and stores only the degree-of-interest reaction (without PII) for users who have not consented. The motivation is to comply with users' privacy preferences and enforce privacy restrictions at the central facility without losing exposure statistics, as expressly discussed by Bosworth in Paragraph [0016].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hyndman and Bosworth teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (Hyndman, Paragraph [0077], "The functions described above may be implemented as one or more sets of program instructions that are stored in a computer readable memory and executed on one or more processors within on one or more computers."), [[ acquire the consent of the user at least at any of a timing when application software for providing the virtual space is installed on a user terminal of the user ]], a timing when the avatar enters the virtual space (Hyndman, Paragraph [0023], "Participants establish a presence in the virtual environment via a virtual environment client on their computer, through which they can create an Avatar and then cause the Avatar to 'live' within the virtual environment." <read on the avatar enters the virtual space>; [0028], "the next time the user enters the virtual environment it may be changed from what it looked like the previous time." <read on the avatar enters the virtual space>), and a timing when the avatar is at a predetermined location in the virtual space (Hyndman, Paragraph [0044], "there are four advertisement regions that have been designated to contain advertising—an oval 40, a diamond 41, a square 42, and a rectangle 43." <read on predetermined location in the virtual space>; [0046], "FIG. 2 shows an Avatar 34A standing in front of the square advertisement region." <read on the avatar is at a predetermined location in the virtual space>; [0070], "Optionally, the user's audio may be monitored while in the vicinity of the advertisement to determine whether the user has mentioned the advertisement. ... If appropriate permission is obtained, a snippet of the conversation or key words may be recorded to enable the comments to be analyzed at a later point in time." <read on acquire the consent of the user at ... a timing when the avatar is at a predetermined location in the virtual space>).
But Hyndman does not explicitly disclose acquire the consent of the user at least at any of a timing when application software for providing the virtual space is installed on a user terminal of the user.
However, Bosworth teaches acquire the consent of the user at least at any of a timing when application software for providing the virtual space is installed on a user terminal of the user (Bosworth, Paragraph [0016], "The consent information is obtained by, for example, prompting the user for the consent information at a time of a registration and/or activation and sending the same to a central facility associated with the monitoring entity." <read on acquire the consent of the user at a timing when application software ... is installed on a user terminal of the user; [0024], "In some examples, the instrumented application 110 is installed on the media device 102 via the user downloading the instrumented application 110 from the example app store 108 (e.g. Apple iTunes, Google play, etc.). ... People become panelists via, for example, a user interface presented on the media device 102" <read on application software ... installed on a user terminal of the user>; [0030], "the registrar 114 requests permission from the one or more users to monitor activity (e.g. media exposure activity) on the media device 102 (e.g., via the instrumented application 110). In the illustrated example, the registrar 114 requests the consent information by presenting an opt-out option to the user of the media device 102." <read on acquire the consent of the user>).
Bosworth and Hyndman are analogous since both of them are dealing with monitoring users' exposure/reaction to content (advertisements/media) and collecting audience-reaction data while addressing user privacy. Hyndman provided a way of monitoring avatar action/focal point in a virtual environment (including in the vicinity of advertisement regions) and obtaining permission at the moment of collection, to gauge the user's degree of interest in advertisement content. Bosworth provided a way of prompting the user for consent information at the time of registration/activation of the instrumented application installed on the user's media device, and enforcing that consent choice at a central facility during subsequent monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the install/registration-time consent prompting taught by Bosworth into the modified invention of Hyndman such that the virtual-environment client of Hyndman, when installed and registered on the user's computer/terminal, requests the user's consent for reaction-information collection at that install/registration time (in addition to, or as an alternative to, the in-environment permission of Hyndman Paragraph [0070] at a predetermined advertisement location and the session-entry timing of Hyndman Paragraphs [0023]/[0028]). The motivation is to implement a convenient opt-out option that captures the user's privacy preference once, up-front, avoiding "Repeatedly asking the user for their permission" (which would "discourage the user from consenting" and "strains the resources"), while still enforcing the privacy restrictions during subsequent monitoring, discussed by Bosworth in Paragraph [0016].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hyndman and Bosworth teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the action information acquisition unit acquires a motion of a field of view of the avatar as the action information (Hyndman, Paragraph [0050], "As the Avatar turns within the virtual environment to face the direction of the oval-shaped advertisement region, the user's perspective into the virtual environment will change so that the user has a view in the new direction. Accordingly, the Avatar's orientation and focus within the virtual environment may be used to determine what aspect of the virtual environment the user is focused on at any one point in time."; [0052], "In a virtual environment, when viewing the virtual environment in first person mode, the focal point of the Avatar's vision corresponds to the center of the user's screen. Accordingly, by tracking the Avatar's focal point in the virtual environment, it is possible to track where the user is likely to have focused"; [0054], "FIG. 12 shows a two dimensional statistic map implemented using a probability density function 200 which shows the user's attention across the avatar's field of view 202."; it is noted by tracking the avatar's turning/orientation and the shift of the Avatar's focal point/field of view <read on motion of a field of view of the avatar> as the action information).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hyndman and Bosworth teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the one or more processors acquires an utterance of the avatar [[ or content in a chat field ]] as the action information (Hyndman, Paragraph [0070], "Optionally, the user's audio may be monitored while in the vicinity of the advertisement <read on utterance of the avatar> to determine whether the user has mentioned the advertisement. For example, key words may be associated with an advertisement to determine whether a user is discussing the advertisement with other users of the virtual environment. The fact that the advertisement is being discussed may also be used as an indication of the effectiveness of the advertisement <read on as the action information>. If appropriate permission is obtained, a snippet of the conversation or key words may be recorded to enable the comments to be analyzed at a later point in time.").
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hyndman and Bosworth teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches determines that the degree of interest is higher in a case where a proportion of a period of time during which a line of sight of the avatar is directed to the content occupying a predetermined measurement time is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value than in a case where the proportion is less than the predetermined threshold value (Hyndman, Paragraph [0043], "the user's attention and other interaction with advertisements or sponsored products is monitored to determine whether the advertisement/product is viewed, if so what aspects are viewed, how long they are viewed and other aspects about how the user is looking at the graphic or physical object."; [0066], "when the user dwells on a particular advertisement for a sufficient period of time, such as two seconds, and is relatively far away, the size of the advertisement may be increased to provide the user with a better view of the advertisement. This enables the user to have tunnel vision toward the advertisement to provide the user with a clearer view of the advertisement that is contained within the advertising region."; [0063], "the closer an Avatar gets to an advertisement region the more strongly the user may be assumed <read on determines that the degree of interest is higher> to be reading and understanding what is shown in any advertisement contained in the advertisement region."; it is noted by dwelling on (i.e., directing Avatar's line of sight/focal point at) the advertisement content "for a sufficient period of time, such as two seconds" (i.e., proportion of dwell time in a measurement window ≥ threshold) <read on proportion of a period of time during which a line of sight of the avatar is directed to the content ... equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value>).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hyndman and Bosworth teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the one or more processors collects the reaction information in a case where the degree of interest is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (Hyndman, Paragraph [0058], "some objects which are within the user's field of view may be blurred out and, hence, not likely to be clearly visible to the user. Accordingly, even if the object is directly in the middle of the user's field of view, it is not likely that the user is focused on those objects. Thus, these objects would not be painted with the virtual brush to enable the attention monitoring system to account for the depth of view blurring."; [0059], "the attention monitoring system will apply a low probability to those objects even if the user is focused directly toward them. ... the distant objects or details of the distant objects may be eliminated from the set of objects the user might be looking at."; [0057], "the coloration applied by the virtual brush is collected by the attention monitoring function for later analysis."; it is noted the attention monitoring function only "paints"/collects (i.e., records into the attention record) objects for which the probability that the user is focused (i.e., the inferred degree of interest) is not too low; objects below the low-probability floor are eliminated and not collected which read on collects the reaction information in a case where the degree of interest is equal to or greater than a predetermined value).
Regarding Claim 8, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 1 but as a method and the combination of Hyndman and Bosworth teaches all the limitations as of Claim 1. Therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of claim 1 and the combination of Hyndman and Bosworth teaches all the limitations as of Claim 1. And Hyndman discloses these features can be implemented on a computer-readable storage medium (Hyndman, Paragraph [0077], “The functions described above may be implemented as one or more sets of program instructions that are stored in a computer readable memory and executed on one or more processors within on one or more computers”).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyndman et al. (US 20100164956 A1, hereinafter Hyndman), in view of Bosworth et al. (US 20150186536 A1, hereinafter Bosworth) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Ziman (US 20200294312 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hyndman and Bosworth teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: (Hyndman, Paragraph [0077], "program instructions that are stored in a computer readable memory and executed on one or more processors"), [[ encourage the user to agree to share with other users a fact that the user is interested in the content ]], in a case where the degree of interest is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (Hyndman, Paragraph [0066], "when the user dwells on a particular advertisement for a sufficient period of time, such as two seconds, and is relatively far away, the size of the advertisement may be increased to provide the user with a better view of the advertisement." <read on in a case where the degree of interest is equal to or greater than a predetermined value — the "sufficient period of time, such as two seconds" of avatar dwell on the advertisement is the predetermined value on the user's degree of interest; and only "when" this threshold is met does the system take the responsive action of enlarging the advertisement, showing the condition-gated ("in a case where ... equal to or greater than") logic>; [0053], "the attention monitoring function will track the Avatar's focal point and make an assumption that there is an x% chance that the user was focused directly at the Avatar's focal point." <read on degree of interest — the x% likelihood is a numeric measure of the user's interest that can be compared to a predetermined value>; [0064], "if 80% of the users that enter an area look at a particular pole, the pole may be a good place to put up an advertising region. If, by contrast, only 2% of the people that enter the region look at the pole, adding an advertising region to the pole may be less than ideal" <read on equal to or greater than a predetermined value — the 80% vs. 2% comparison shows the system's use of a predetermined interest-percentage threshold to decide the responsive action>; [0048], "Based on what the Avatar is looking at, it is possible to infer the user's interest in a particular graphic object" <read on the fact that the user is interested in the content>).
But the combination does not explicitly disclose encourage the user to agree to share with other users a fact that the user is interested in the content.
However, Ziman teaches encourage the user to agree to share with other users a fact that the user is interested in the content (Ziman, Paragraph [0038], "the user of the user device (131) may invite a friend using another user device (133) to join and share the viewing experience of the media content (115)" <read on share with other users a fact that the user is interested in the content>; [0042], " allowing the avatar (121) to request a communication connection with such avatars (e.g., 125) selected by the avatar (121) and/or invite the respective avatars (e.g., 125) to join the viewing experience of the avatar (121) " <read on encourage the user ... to share with other users>; [0051], "receive ... an acceptance to the invitation" <read on agree to share; [0077], "a viewer can share the movie, show or sports event with friends" <read on share with other users a fact that the user is interested in the content>). Ziman further supports the "agree/consent" aspect (Ziman, Paragraph [0146], "in compliance with all current and future rules, laws and regulations related to privacy, security, permission, consent, authorization" <read on agree>).
Ziman and Hyndman are analogous since both are directed to avatars viewing content on virtual display objects in a virtual world/environment. Hyndman provided a way of tracking the avatar's action/focal point to compute the user's degree of interest and compare it against a predetermined value. Ziman provided a way of, via a server-provided UI in the virtual world, inviting friends/other avatars to join and share the viewing of the media content for sharing with other users the fact that the inviting user is engaged with that content is subject to the invitee's acceptance and applicable consent rules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the "invite friends to share the viewing experience" UI of Ziman into the modified invention of Hyndman such that the system uses Hyndman's already-taught interest-threshold gate only in a case where the user's degree of interest (e.g., dwell time or look-rate on the content) is equal to or greater than the predetermined value as the trigger to present the Ziman-style invitation UI encouraging the user to agree to share with other users the fact that the user is interested in that content. The motivation is to reuse the high-interest gating to share-with-friends invitation, so that the share prompt appears at the moment the user is most engaged, thereby enhancing the "shared experience between friends" expressly discussed by Ziman in Paragraph [0077].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250131124 A1 Personalized Avatars with Custom Levels of Privacy
US 20250022230 A1 INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS
US 20240189721 A1 METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES TO PROTECT PERSONAL IDENTIFIABLE (PI) DATA WHEN A USER UTILIZES AN AVATAR IN A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT
US 20240007477 A1 IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND MEDIUM
US 20220335275 A1 MULTIMODAL, DYNAMIC, PRIVACY PRESERVING AGE AND ATTRIBUTE ESTIMATION AND LEARNING METHODS AND SYSTEMS
US 20190370492 A1 SYSTEM AND METHOD TO PREVENT SURVEILLANCE AND PRESERVE PRIVACY IN VIRTUAL REALITY
US 9220981 B2 Controlling attribute expression within a virtual environment
US 7065711 B2 Information processing device and method, and recording medium
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUJANG TSWEI whose telephone number is (571)272-6669. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571) 272-7667. 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.
/YuJang Tswei/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights