DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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) submitted by applicant on 03/19/2025, 04/11/2025, and 07/31/2025 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poisner et al. (US Patent Application No. 20170093848) (Hereinafter Poisner) in view of Aimone et al. (US Patent Application No. 20200356136) (Hereinafter Aimone).
Poisner discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: capturing or receiving, with at least one processor, data associated with behavior of a user of a virtual reality device during a current session in a virtual environment, that a virtual user corresponding to the user can move within (para 125, authentication spell for user of wand, para 127, user performs operations, para 129-132 , 143-150, to detect one or more gestures wherein the one or more gestures are movements performed using the wand by a user of the wand, and generate sensor data representative of the one or more gestures);
determining, with at least one processor, at least one entry point of the at least one virtual structure used by the virtual user based on the data, the at least one entry point representing a spatial location within the virtual environment (para 128, the IoT device may be an electro-mechanical device that opens a door to a gaming environment (e.g., an arena, an amusement park ride, a museum, a shopping mall, and the like) wherein the wand user is required to be within five feet of the IoT device while performing an authentication spell that is specific to the gaming environment.);
in response to a transaction initiated by the user while in the virtual environment,
initiating, with at least one processor, authentication of the user (fig 10, para 116-133, may determine whether the spell sequence matches a defined authentication spell sequence, para 126-127 setup-start indicator triggers authentication .. authentication begins upon instruction/event);
processing, with at least one processor, the data associated with the behavior of the user including the at least one entry point with a behavioral model (para 125-133, 150, wherein reception of the authentication spell output or the inactivation spell output is based on a comparison of the spell sequence with a defined spell sequence for each of the plurality of spells, a determination of a degree of similarity between the spell sequence and the defined spell sequence of each of the plurality of spells); and
authenticating, with at least one processor, the user based on an output of the behavioral model, the output based at least partially on the at least one entry point (fig 10, para 116-133, may determine whether the spell sequence matches a defined authentication spell sequence).
Poisner does not explicitly disclose the virtual environment comprising at least one virtual structure including at least one virtual shop. However, Aimone discloses the virtual environment comprising at least one virtual structure including at least one virtual shop (para 98-99,128 VR environment may be a shopping center where she can shop online ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Poisner and Aimone. The motivation would have been to convert sensor data representative of gestures into a spell sequence and authenticating user based on spell sequence.
The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims.
As per claim 2, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Aimone discloses wherein the at least one virtual structure comprises a virtual mall with a plurality of virtual shops including the at least one virtual shop (para 98-99,128 VR environment may be a shopping center where she can shop online ).
As per claim 3, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Poisner discloses wherein the data associated with the behavior of the user further comprises a speed of actions performed by the user within the virtual environment, and wherein the output is based at least partially on the speed of the actions (para 119, 120,132 may track timing information associated with one or more performed gestures. Such timing information may be a time period in which the one or more gestures are required to be performed (within a certain margin of error) and/or a time period in which each of the one or more gestures are to be performed.).
As per claim 4, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Poisner discloses, wherein the data associated with the behavior of the user further comprises a reaction of the user within the virtual environment, and wherein the output is based at least partially on the reaction of the user (para 119. 120,132; para 32 may track timing information associated with one or more performed gestures. Such timing information may be a time period in which the one or more gestures are required to be performed (within a certain margin of error) and/or a time period in which each of the one or more gestures are to be performed.).
As per claim 5, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Poisner discloses wherein the reaction of the user is determined based on sensory inputs comprising at least one of the following:
tactile data, eye movement data, brain activity data, or any combination thereof (para 31, 133, 154, one or more biometric sensors, such as an infrared heart rate monitoring device, a fingerprint or handprint scanning device, an eye scanning device, an electromyography (EMG) device for detecting electrical patterns associated with a user's muscular contractions, an electroencephalograph (EEG) device for measuring and/or recording electrical signals produced by a user's brain, and the like. In such embodiments, biometric data detected or sensed by the one or more biometric).
As per claim 6, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Poisner discloses wherein the data associated with the behavior of the user further comprises at least one of the following: frequency of following instructions in the virtual environment, a pattern of recognizing one or more items in the virtual environment (para 63, a projected movement pattern), time taken for each path followed in the virtual environment, or any combination thereof (para 127, determine whether a degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a threshold. Para 150, output is based on a comparison of the spell sequence with a defined spell sequence for each of the plurality of spells, a determination of a degree of similarity between).
As per claim 7, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Poisner discloses wherein the output of the behavioral model comprises a score, the method further comprising comparing the score to a threshold, wherein authenticating the user is based on the score satisfying the threshold (para 127, determine whether a degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a threshold. Para 150, output is based on a comparison of the spell sequence with a defined spell sequence for each of the plurality of spells, a determination of a degree of similarity between).
As per claim 8, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Aimone discloses wherein the at least one entry point comprises a preferred entry point of a plurality of entry points (para 99, The construct may be a casino floor, museum exhibit, shopping center, bar, public park, or other crowded space. A bunch of agents and characters surround Walt, engaging him in conversation or activity, such as games on the casino floor).
As per claim 9, claim is rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claim 1, above. In addition, Aimone discloses wherein the at least one entry point comprises a structure level of a plurality of levels (para 99, The construct may be a casino floor, museum exhibit, shopping center, bar, public park, or other crowded space. A bunch of agents and characters surround Walt, engaging him in conversation or activity, such as games on the casino floor).
As per claims 10-18, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claims 1-9, above.
As per claims 19-20, claims are rejected for the same reasons and motivations as claims 1 and 8 or 9, above.
Conclusion
Please see the attached PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI whose telephone number is (571)272-3976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Carl G Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A SIDDIQI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights