DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were subjected to a Restriction/Election requirement.
Claims 1-11 had previously been elected.
Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-11 have been examined.
Responses to Applicant’s remarks have been given.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Priority
The current application is a Continuation of 17017488, filed 09/10/2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,501,003 which is a Continuation of 16364016, filed 03/25/2019, now U.S. Patent No. 10,776,496 which is a Continuation of 15594457, filed 05/12/2017, now U.S. Patent No. 10,282,551.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the arguments pertaining to the restriction, Invention group I (claims 1 and 3-11) pertains to the simulation being rendered based upon examining for security threats. Whereas, while Invention group II (claims 12-20) does have simulating the rendering of a virtual object and determining of approval, this is based upon (as found within dependent claim 13) the simulation being rendered upon the measuring and determination of computer resource usage. Invention group II does not pertain to security.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are allowable over the prior art. The restriction requirement between Inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 03/14/2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the nonelected claims do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
Also, claims 12-20 were subject to an Election/Restriction requirement and currently are listed as "withdrawn", but are not canceled. The restriction requirement is maintained because the nonelected claims do not require all of the limitations of the allowable claims. The cancellation of claims 12-20, as well as the filing and approval of an electronic Terminal Disclaimer would place the current application in condition for allowance.
The Double Patenting rejection is maintained via the amendments did not overcome said rejection, nor has a Terminal Disclaimer been filed and approved.
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 and 3-11 of the current application, hereinafter “758” are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 10282551 B2, hereinafter “551”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations within the claims of “758” and “551” are directed to the creation of a “three-dimensional virtual reality world” and of “virtual objects” within said “virtual reality world”; with “security threats” and “performance concerns” being assessed.
Claims 1 and 3-11 of “758” are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 10776496 B2, hereinafter “496”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims within “758” and “496” are directed to the creation and hosting of a “three-dimensional virtual reality world” and of “virtual objects” within said “virtual reality world”; with “security threats” and “performance concerns” being assessed.
Claims 1 and 3-11 of “758” are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11501003 B2, hereinafter “003”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims within “758” and “003” are directed to the creation of “virtual objects” within “a three-dimensional model”, of which “security threats” and “performance concerns” are assess via “simulating rendering of the virtual object; and approve publication of the virtual object based at least in part on a result of simulating the rendering of the virtual object”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-11 distinguish themselves over the prior art; however, they remain rejected in view of the grounds for Double Patenting stated above. The filing and approval of a Terminal Disclaimer would overcome said Double Patenting rejection.
Further, this application would be in condition for allowance except for the grounds for Double Patenting, as well as the presence of claims 12-20 directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
As per independent claim 1, generally, the prior art of record, United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20090157481 A1 to Jung et al. which shows methods and systems for specifying a cohort-linked avatar attribute; United States Patent No. US 8832784 B2 to Budko et al. which shows an intelligent security control system for virtualized ecosystems; and United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20100138455 A1 to Alewine et al. which shows a system and method for detecting inappropriate content in virtual worlds, fails to teach alone, or in combination, other than via hindsight, at the time of the filing of the claimed invention, the claim elements (i.e., claim 1: “simulate rendering of the virtual object in a virtual environment represented by a three dimensional model; and determine approval of the virtual object in the virtual environment based at least in part on a result of a simulation of the rendering of the virtual object in the virtual environment; wherein the microprocessor is further configured to detect security threats and performance concerns by examining components of the virtual object”); serving to patently distinguish the invention from said prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on form PTO-892 are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to virtual objects within a virtual world environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH L AVERY whose telephone number is (571)272-8627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/JEREMIAH L AVERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431