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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 02/17/2026. Presently, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0099686 to Barki in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0050812 to Boileau.
With regard to claim 1, Barki discloses a toy system adapted for use in a social play experience, the toy system comprising a plurality of toy construction elements and a data processing system configured to: a) store a data structure defining a task structure, in particular a hierarchical task structure, the task structure comprising a plurality of tasks (0029-0035) wherein at least a subset of the tasks comprise construction of respective toy construction assemblies from respective pluralities of the toy construction elements (0034-0039); b) select one or more tasks from the plurality of tasks and assign the selected one or more tasks to respective one or more play participants chosen from a plurality of play participants; wherein selection and/or assignment of the one or more tasks is based at least in part on the dependencies between the plurality of tasks (0031-0034), wherein a task is eligible for selection and assignment only after each predecessor task defined in the task structure has been marked completed in response to an explicit user-input of the respective assigned participant (0037); c) present, to the one or more play participants to whom a task has been assigned, the corresponding assigned task (0031-0039); d) receive, an explicit user-input from the one or more play participants to whom the task was assigned affirmatively indicating completion of the respective assigned tasks (0031-0039); and e) repeat steps until a play completion trigger is fulfilled, the play completion trigger being a condition defined in the task structure and satisfied when each task has been marked completed in response to the explicit user-input received via said user interface control (0031-0039).
Barki is not explicitly clear that the user interface show in progress and show completion is presented together with the assigned task. However, the combination of Barki and Boileau teaches each task having a status attribute indicative of a current status of the task (Boileau fig. 4; 0088); and wherein selecting and assigning comprises selecting only tasks having a status attribute indicating a status other than “completed” and other than “in progress” and for which each predecessor task has been marked “completed” in the task structure (Barki at 0031-0034; 0039; Boileau fig. 4; 0088) a user interface control presented together with the corresponding assigned task (Boileau fig. 4; 0088); and in response to receipt of said explicit user-input, update the stored task structure by changing the status attribute of the assigned task from ‘in progress’ to ‘completed’ in the data structure (Boileau fig. 4; 0088).
With regard to Claim 2, Boileau teaches wherein the status attribute is stored as part of the task structure and is update din the task structure in response to the explicit user-input (fig. 4; 0088).
With regard to Claim 3, Barki discloses wherein selection and assignment of a first task to a first play participant is based at least in part on one or more selection criteria selected from: an age of the first play participant, a skill level of the first play participant, a preference of the first play participant, and an identity, type and/or attribute of an avatar selected or assigned to the play participant (0015; 0032).
With regard to Claim 4, Barki discloses wherein the data processing system is configured to: determine at least one observable metrics indicative of a play behavior of a first play participant when performing one or more of the tasks; and base the selection of a subsequent task to be performed by the first play participant at least in part on the determined at least one observable metrics (0015; 0032).
With regard to Claim 5, Barki discloses wherein the observable metrics is selected from: an elapsed time between presentation of a task to the first participant until receipt of a user- input from the first play participant indicative of a completion of the selected task; and an attribute indicative of a usage pattern of task guidance provided by the data processing system via the user-interface (0032).
With regard to Claim 6, Boileau teaches wherein assigning a task comprises labeling the task as “in progress’ by updating the status attribute of the task in the task structure (fig. 4; 0088).
With regard to Claim 7, Barki discloses wherein the data processing system is configured to present task guidance, in particular building instructions, to the play participant (0031-0039).
With regard to claim 8, Barki discloses wherein at least one task of the plurality of tasks comprises creating a digital representation of a constructed toy construction model and embedding the created digital representation in a virtual environment accessible to at least some of the play participants (0034).
Claims 9 and 11 are directly related to claim 1 and are rejected in like manner. Furthermore, with regard to claim 9, the combination of Barki and Boileau teaches programmatically evaluating the dependencies define din the stored task structure to identify tasks having no uncompleted predecessor tasks prior to assignment (Barki at 0031-0039; Boileau fig. 4; 0088).
With regard to claim 12, Barki discloses wherein the database further has stored thereon task dependencies and task instructions (0031-0034).
With regard to claim 13, Barki discloses wherein the computer processor is further configured to execute the step of receiving play participant attributes from each play participant via user-input prior to assigning the plurality of tasks to play participants (0032).
Claims 14-16 contain similar limitations to claims 4, 5, and 8 respectively and are rejected in like manner to those claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Boileau with the disclosure of Barki in order to incorporate project management functions into Barki so it is clear what is presently being worked on vs. what has already been completed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are addressed with the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights