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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 03/31/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
AIA Notice
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0306639 A1 to Karlsson et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6,112,024 to Almond and further in view of U.S. Patent 8,639,659 to Ishihara.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 9 and 15, (Currently Amended) Karlsson discloses a method for collaboratively editing game data of a game application within a virtual development space (¶ [0043] discloses game editor client 120 can provide an interface through which the user can access the asset hub 132 and source asset data store 140), the method comprising:
receiving a request from a user computing system to initiate an editing session (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, step 504 paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043], [0047] discloses receiving a request to initiate edit a first game application from a user computing system, wherein the request is generated by a game editor client application installed on the user computing system);
creating an instantiated virtual development space, wherein the instantiated virtual development space enables a first plurality of game developer systems to view and edit game data, and wherein the game data is stored on a server (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043], [0047] discloses the game editor client 120 can provide an interface through which the user can access the asset hub 132 and source asset data store 140. The source asset data store 140 provides access to source assets that a user can modify. The source assets access can be divided into various different categories, such as public and private source assets);
receiving a request from a first game developer system of the first plurality of game developer systems to edit a first set of game data, wherein the first set of game data is a temporary instantiation of a subset of the game data (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043] discloses the game editor client 120 can provide an interface through which the user can access the asset hub 132 and source asset data store 140. The source asset data store 140 provides access to source assets that a user can modify. The source assets access can be divided into various different categories, such as public and private source assets);
receiving one or more changes by the first game developer system to the first set of game data (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043]);
generating a log tracking the one or more changes to the first set of game data (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043]);
broadcasting the one or more changes to the first set of game data within the instantiated virtual development space such that updates of the first set of game data are visible to the first plurality of game developer systems (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043]);
receiving a change confirmation by the first game developer system for the one or more changes resulting in a confirmed change to the first set of game data (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043]);
updating the subset of the game data in the server such that the subset of the game data in the server includes the confirmed change to the first set of game data (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043]); and
unlocking the subset of the game data in the server (figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0037]-[0043]).
Karlsson discloses that source assets may be subject to access restrictions determined by the server based on the computing profile and game requirements. Karlsson does not explicitly disclose in response to receiving the request from the first game developer system to edit the first set of game data, locking the subset of the game data in the server, generating a change log, broadcasting the changes to a plurality of development systems, and unlocking upon a change confirmation.
Almond discloses server communicates over a wire or a network for providing versioning services to multiple clients. During a user session, a user invokes operation of the system from within the development environment of the particular client being used. From the perspective of the Object Cycle Server, each client is simply "a client" (without regard to proprietary nature) which desires to store "an object." Almond discloses manages versions of objects stored on a server, used by a development team, in which a user “checks out” an object – i.e. borrows the object to edit it, - and in response, the system prevents others from accessing the object while it is being edited (i.e. locks the object) and “check in” the modified object to create a new version. In addition, it also discloses viewing reports of project activity. (see Col. 26:19-38, Col. 34:62 – Col. 38:64, Col. 19:13 – Col. 20:17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karlsson to lock the subset of game data in the server in response to developer’s request to edit it and unlock it as taught by Almond in order to allow multiple teams to edit shared server-stored objects concurrently while preventing conflicting simultaneous edits and reconciling edits.
However the combination does not explicitly disclose: broadcasting the changes to a plurality of development systems.
Ishihara discloses a method with which a server computer enables an object in content data to be edited collaboratively. The server computer is connectable through a network to a first client computer associated with a first user and a second client computer associated with a second user. Ishihara discloses broadcasting the changes to a plurality of development systems (figs. 7A-7B, Col. 1:45 – Col. 2:59 discloses collaborative editing of an object in content data wherein a server performs centralized control over data being edited by multiple users connected through a network, receives change instruction data from a client, and broadcasts/propagates the change so that the edited object is reflected to the other clients i.e., broadcasting changes within the development space such that updates are visible to the plurality of developer systems).
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 combination of Karlsson and Almond with the features of Ishihara in order to allow multiple teams to edit shared server-stored objects concurrently while preventing conflicting simultaneous edits and reconciling edits.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claims 10 and 16, (Original) Karlsson in view of Almond and Ishihara discloses the method of Claim 1, the method further comprising:
receiving a request from a second user computing system to initiate a second editing session (Ishihara, figs. 7A-7B, Col. 1:45 – Col. 2:59); and
creating a second instantiated virtual development space, wherein the second instantiated virtual development space enables a second plurality of game developer systems to view and edit the game data (Ishihara, figs. 7A-7B, Col. 1:45 – Col. 2:59).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claims 11 and 17, (Original) Karlsson in view of Almond and Ishihara discloses the method of Claim 2, the method further comprising, in response to locking the subset of the game data in the server, preventing the second plurality of game developer systems from requesting to edit a second set of game data, wherein the second set of game data is a temporary instantiation of the subset of the game data (Almond, Col. 19:13 – Col. 20:17).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claims 12 and 18, (Original) Karlsson in view of Almond and Ishihara discloses the method of Claim 3, the method further comprising, in response to unlocking the subset of the game data in the server, broadcasting the one or more changes to the first set of game data within the second instantiated virtual development space such that the confirmed change to the first set of game data is visible to the second plurality of game developer systems (Almond, Col. 19:13 – Col. 20:17; Ishihara, figs. 7A-7B, Col. 1:45 – Col. 2:59).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 13, (Original) Karlsson in view of Almond and Ishihara discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the first game developer system receives permission from the server prior to making a request to edit the first set of game data (Karlsson, figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0037]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 14, (Original) Karlsson in view of Almond and Ishihara discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein creating the instantiated virtual development space comprises delivering one or more data editing tools to the first plurality of game developer systems, wherein the one or more editing tools are configured to enable the first plurality of game developer systems to view and edit the game data (Karlsson, figs. 1, 2A-2C, 5, paras. [0037]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 19, (Original) Karlsson in view of Almond and Ishihara discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein, in response to locking the subset of the game data in the server, a second game developer system of the first plurality of game developer systems is prevented from editing the first set of game data (Almond, Col. 19:13 – Col. 20:17).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 20, (Original) Karlsson in view of Almond and Ishihara discloses the method of Claim 7, further comprising receiving permission from the first game developer system to allow the second game developer system to edit the first set of game data ((Almond, Col. 19:13 – Col. 20:17; Ishihara, figs. 7A-7B, Col. 1:45 – Col. 2:59).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the Remarks, that Karlsson does not teach “in response to receiving the request from the first game developer system to edit the first set of game data, locking the subset of the game data in the server”. The Examiner agrees that Karlsson alone does not teach the amended language. The 35 USC 102 rejection over Karlsson is hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights