DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed March 31, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended.
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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,380,282. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the features recited in the examiner applications can also be found in the reference patent claims as per the following mappings. Claims 1, 1, 6, 3, 5, 9, 9, 14, 13, 17, 17, 6, 19, and 5 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20, respectively.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,550,621. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the features recited in the examiner applications can also be found in the reference patent claims as per the following mappings. Claims 1, 1, 2, 7, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9, 13, 11, 12, 14, 14, 15, 20, 16, 17, and 19 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20, respectively.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valadares (Enabling Fine-Grained Load Balancing for Virtual Worlds with Distributed Simulation Engines).
Regarding claim 1, Valadares discloses:
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to (see at least page 3468, section 4.3.1, results discussing memory usage and executing scenarios; page 3465, paragraph 1, CPU load):
assign, to a first virtual process, a first component of a first entity in a simulated world, based on a determination that the first component is associated with a first value of a first metric and that the first component is associated with a first value of a second metric; assign, to a second virtual process, a second component of the first entity in the simulated world based on a determination that the second component is associated with the first value of the first metric and that the second component is associated with a second value of the second metric (see at least section 2.1, space partitioning for virtual environments; section 3.2 and figure 2, partitioned space and actors and microcells, if an entity is within the microcell an actor is subscribed [metrics being within the bounds of a microcell or partition], also see section 3.3 for crossing boundaries; page 3462, paragraph 4, overlapping subscriptions of actors of different types; page 3463, paragraphs 2 and 3; page 3461, section 2.2, operations are aggregated by functionality, physics operations, script operations, scalable virtual world where workload is partitioned and mapped to multiple servers; section 3, microcells, or operations partitioning, enables workload to be partitioned in actors. NOTE: the examined application’s specification details that metrics may be different types of components such as a physics component, the metric for partition 1 may be physics components within rectangle 2410 and metric for partition 2 may be physics components within rectangle 2420, see ¶271);
send, to a partition enforcer service, indications of: assignment of the first component to the first virtual process, and assignment of the second component to the second virtual process (see at least section 3, paragraphs 1-3, “DSG-M results from the combination of DSG and Microcells, i.e. “operations” partitioning as well as flexible space partitioning. DSG enables workload to be partitioned in actors, and actors can be instantiated many times for improved load balancing. For instance, a client manager actor, responsible for receiving and sending updates to clients, could be instantiated several times to handle more clients. In DSG-M, workloads can be addressed by space partitions as well. Physics actors, responsible for the physics operations, can be instantiated and assigned to smaller parts of the total workload, by being assigned smaller areas of space. Our work adapts microcells to DSG, enhancing load balancing through flexible space partitioning, in parallel to operation partitioning. We refer to our adapted architecture as DSG-Microcell, or DSG-M”)
keep, based on the first component being concurrently associated with the first value of the second metric and the second value of the second metric, the assignment of the first component to the first virtual process; and reassign, based on the first component being associated with the second value of the second metric and being disassociated with the first value of the second metric, the first virtual process to the second virtual process (see at least section 3.1, passive subscriptions, useful in improving physics simulation correctness (for example collisions) near the borders of the microcells; figure 6, scenario 3, where physics actors 1 and 2 are both passive microcell subscribers on the border between the two actors. Therefore when an entity moves from the physics actor A microcell to the passive subscription microcell, physics actor A is subscribed so the same virtual process is still assigned. However when an entity moves away from the physics actor A microcell or the passive microcell into the physics actor B microcell, the virtual process is switched.)
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Valadares further discloses:
determine a first partition for the first component; determine a second partition for the second component (see at least section 2.1, space partitioning for virtual environments; section 3.2 and figure 2, partitioned space and actors and microcells, if an entity is within the microcell an actor is subscribed);
assign the first virtual process to the first partition; assign the second virtual process to the second partition (see at least page 3461, section 2.2, scalable virtual world where workload is partitioned and mapped to multiple servers; section 3, microcells, or operations partitioning, enables workload to be partitioned in actor; page 3462, paragraph 4; page 3463, paragraphs 2 and 3);
send, to the partition enforcer service, indications of: the first partition, the second partition, assignment of the first virtual process to the first partition, and assignment of the second virtual process to the second partition; and send, to a virtual process manager, indications of the first virtual process and the second virtual process (see at least section 3, paragraphs 1-3, “DSG-M results from the combination of DSG and Microcells, i.e. “operations” partitioning as well as flexible space partitioning. DSG enables workload to be partitioned in actors, and actors can be instantiated many times for improved load balancing. For instance, a client manager actor, responsible for receiving and sending updates to clients, could be instantiated several times to handle more clients. In DSG-M, workloads can be addressed by space partitions as well. Physics actors, responsible for the physics operations, can be instantiated and assigned to smaller parts of the total workload, by being assigned smaller areas of space. Our work adapts microcells to DSG, enhancing load balancing through flexible space partitioning, in parallel to operation partitioning. We refer to our adapted architecture as DSG-Microcell, or DSG-M”)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Valadares further discloses:
wherein at least one of the first partition or the second partition is a bounded region having a shape of at least one of a sphere, a circle, a cylinder, a box, or a rectangle (see at least page 3461, paragraph, shaped partitions; last paragraph, microcells are rectangular shaped areas; page 3462, paragraph 3; note that the background contemplates different shaped partitions)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Valadares further discloses:
wherein at least one of the first metric or the second metric comprises a component type (see at least section 3.2 and figure 2, partitioned space and actors and microcells; page 3462, section 3.1, paragraph 2, microcell’s entities and environmental parameters allowing operations to be performed)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and Valadares further discloses:
wherein the component type comprises data corresponding to at least one of a physics system or a weather system (see at least page 3454, section 4.1, The physics actor is responsible for creating physics updates, such as calculating positions and velocity based on forces and collisions)
Regarding claims 8-10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 1-3, 5, and 6. Accordingly, claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 1-3, and 6, respectively, and claims 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, and 6, respectively.
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 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valadares (Enabling Fine-Grained Load Balancing for Virtual Worlds with Distributed Simulation Engines).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Valadares further discloses:
receive, from a configuration database, configuration data for the simulated world; and receive, from an external services database, external data, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the first partition of the simulated world further based on the configuration data and the external data (see at least page 3460, section 2, paragraph 4, In Darkstar, multiple nodes are instantiated to balance the load. Each node is identical, containing the game server and the Darkstar stack. When an update is processed by the game server, Darkstar creates a transaction and requests the necessary data through a meta-service connected to the database.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first embodiment of Valadares [updates to entities by an actor which could affect the partitioning of entities (section 3.2, position updates for an entity and an entity crossing a microcell boundary)] by adapting the teachings of the background of Valadares to include external configuration database information affecting the partition of the virtual world. The combination allows for importing external configuration data which would allow for improved failover and server efficiency.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the scope of the instant claims do not differ substantially from that of claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valadares (Enabling Fine-Grained Load Balancing for Virtual Worlds with Distributed Simulation Engines) in view of Zolnieryk (US 10,146,877).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Valadares further discloses:
wherein the first virtual process and the second virtual process comprise a plurality of virtual workers (see at least section 3), and
However, Valadares does not explicitly disclose, but Zolnieryk discloses:
receive, from an external computing device, a request to replace a first virtual worker, of the plurality of virtual workers, with an external virtual worker running on the external computing device; send, to a worker layer, a request to disconnect the first virtual worker from a bridge in a bridge layer; and connect the external virtual worker to the bridge in the bridge layer to replace the first virtual worker (see at least figure 7, sever manager, router; col 14: 39-56, router manages communications within the network data center; col 14: 57 – col 15: 14, server manager determines servers to receive and process communications based on identity, location, other attributes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valadares by adapting the teachings of Zolnieryk to include bridges to connect the workers for communication. The combination allows for improved network performance by efficiently managing the sending of communications.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the scope of the instant claims do not differ substantially from that of claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims under §102(a)(1) and §103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The newly added limitations are taught by Valadares, specifically the passive subscription areas. This border buffer is similar to Applicant’s figure 27 and paragraphs 283 and 284 describing an overlapping partition. When an entity moves from a worker 1 area moves into an overlapping partition, not reassigning the entity to worker 2 when the entity is still in an area where worker 1 is also assigned. Therefore the prior art does teach the limitations as seen in the rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Conklin discusses spatial hysteresis where a cloud participant has to be a minimum distance away from the boundary of the cloud to have exited the cloud. Zou discloses using spatial hysteresis to prevent ping-pong switching between wireless carriers. Mooney discloses a similar solution to prevent ping-pong issues when a mobile moves along a border area.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIMBERLY L JORDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 9am-3pm.
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, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/KIMBERLY L JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights