Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR §1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR §1.17(e), was filed on January 23, 2026 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in 37 CFR §1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action dated September 24, 2025 has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR §1.114 and the submission filed on January 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-22 are rejected for the reasons set forth below. Claims 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities, and the following is suggested to overcome the informalities and to improve claim clarity:
Claim 21 recites the limitations, “receive a damage report…” “detect, based upon a comparison…” and “generate output data…” These limitations should be amended to correct grammatical mistakes. For example, the limitations should eb amended to state, “receiving a damage report…” “detecting, based upon a comparison…” and “generating output data…”
Appropriate correction or clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6-8, 12, 13, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groom (U.S. Patent No. 11475526) in view of Gagne-Keats (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230237483) and Maestas (U.S. Patent No. 11055531).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Groom teaches:
A computer system for archiving into a digital environment, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the at least one processor programmed to (See at least Col. 24, Lines 43-67: Describes a system for creating a representative map of a real environment. The system comprises a processor and machine-readable storage device):
receive a three-dimensional (3-D) scan of an object to be archived (See at least Col. 15, Lines 35-60: The system may detect tangible objects in a real environment. This may include performing 3D model generation and image analysis on the real environment via a user's device);
generate a digital twin of the object based on the 3-D scan of the object (See at least Col. 15, Line 61 – Col. 16, Line 5: Data produced by the tangible object detection operations is evaluated to determine if any tangible objects were detected. If at least one tangible object is detected, an associated representative object [i.e., a digital twin] is generated),
receive, from one or more electronic devices located in a location where the object is present, first supplemental data associated with the object (See at least Col. 11, Lines 7-38: Identifying information [i.e., supplemental data] associate with the tangible object may be gathered and stored in at least one data store. The identifying information may be gathered based on the user identifying the tangible object within a media stream facilitated by a user device [i.e., an electronic device located in a location where the object is present; See Col. 10, Line 55 – Col. 11, Line 6]), and
receive a damage report in connection with the object, the damage report including second supplemental data from the one or more electronic devices, wherein the second supplemental data includes second electronic data relating to a second condition of the object (See at least Col. 6, Lines 13-52: The system may transmit an insurance claim [i.e., a damage report] to an insurance company regarding damage done to one or more of the tangible objects. This may include receiving images of the damage from the user [i.e., second supplemental data]).
Regarding Claim 1, Groom does not explicitly teach, but Gagne-Keats, however, does teach:
generate a non-fungible token (NFT) for the object (See at least Paragraph 41: Describes a system for linking virtual assets and physical assets through non-fungible tokens [NFTs] in a metaverse. The system generates an NFT that represents a unique identifier of a real asset [e.g., non-fungible physical asset]); and
store in the at least one memory device as part of an archive record corresponding to the object the NFT; the first supplemental data; and the digital twin of the object with an electronic link between the NFT and the digital twin (See at least Paragraph 41: The NFT is stored on a blockchain. The NFT can be stored on the blockchain as public evidence of ownership of the non-fungible physical asset. A virtual object [i.e., a digital twin] is linked to the NFT that represents the non-fungible physical asset such that the virtual object in the metaverse is anchored to the non-fungible physical object in the real world).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom and Gagne-Keats in order to provide a public certificate of authenticity or proof of ownership of a tangible asset (Gagne-Keats: Paragraph 3). Providing this proof of ownership allows users to be certain that a virtual object corresponding to the tangible object is owned by a particular individual.
Regarding Claim 1, the combination of Groom and Gagne-Keats does not explicitly teach, but Maestas, however, does teach:
wherein the first supplemental data includes first electronic data relating to a first condition of the object that is retrieved from or associated with the one or more electronic devices (See at least Col. 4, Line 11 – Col. 5, Line 3: Describes a process for analyzing damage done to one or more physical objects. The process includes capturing one or more images of the physical objects, and analyzing the images to determine the initial condition of the physical object. The baseline for comparing changes in an object could be determined using a 3D model of the object [i.e., a digital twin; See Paragraph 25]);
detect, based upon a comparison between the digital twin and the second supplemental data, a change in or to the object corresponding to the second condition of the object indicating damage to the object (See at least Col. 4, Line 11 – Col. 5, Line 3: The method may include capturing a second image of the group of physical objects in their modified states [i.e., second supplemental data]. For example, a television may be undamaged in its initial state, but following a hurricane the modified state of the television may include a shattered screen. The method may include detecting differences between the group of objects in their initial states and in their modified states); and
generate output data describing the damage to the object and an amount to repair or replace the object (See at least Col. 4, Lines 46-54: The method can include automatically determining costs for fixing and/or replacing one or more of the physical objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas in order to improve the time-consuming process for determining the cost associated with replacing/repairing items associated with an insurance claim (Maestas: Col. 1, Lines 22-38).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Groom teaches:
wherein the digital twin is a 3-D representation of the object viewable at different angles and configured to be interacted with in a virtual environment and the at least one processor is further programmed to add the digital twin of the object to a virtual structure within or associated with the virtual environment (See at least Col. 3, Line 4 – Col. 4, Line 28: The system may generate a representative map [i.e., a virtual environment] which comprises the plurality of representative objects corresponding to the plurality of tangible objects. The representative objects may be displayed in a representative map of the room. The representative map may be a three-dimensional panorama which allows the user to interact with the representative objects therein. The user may input a command for rotation of the representative map which causes the images to be moved to create a three-dimensional rotation effect).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Groom teaches:
where the at least one processor is further programmed to (i) add a plurality of digital twins of a plurality of objects to the virtual structure (See at least Col. 3, Lines 4-39: The system may generate a representative map [i.e., a virtual environment] which comprises the plurality of representative objects corresponding to the plurality of tangible objects), and
(ii) to generate an inventory of the plurality of digital twins in the virtual structure, the inventory associated with a plurality of archive records including the archive record (See at least Col. 16, Lines 6-14: If user confirmation of the representative object is received, the representative object is confirmed and added to an inventory [Also see Col. 8, Line 45 – Col. 9, Line 23]).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Groom teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate an insurance policy based on the inventory of the plurality of digital twins in the virtual structure (See at least Col. 17, Line 56 – Col. 18, Line 13: The system may generate an insurance quotation for the tangible objects and attached to the representative objects or representative map associated with the tangible objects).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Groom teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to allow a plurality of users to virtually conduct at least one of an event or an activity in the virtual structure, wherein the plurality of users may interact with the plurality of digital twins (See at least Col. 8, Lines 20-44: The system may allow a user to "try" different configurations of representative objects within the representative map [i.e., an activity]. For example, the user may interact with the representative objects in order to move the representative objects between rooms in their house).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Groom teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to allow a user to interact with the digital twin via a virtual reality interface (See at least Col. 4, Lines 18-28: The representative map may be displayed in an interface which allows certain user interactions to manipulate a present display of the representative map. Examiner's Note: While Groom does not explicitly state that the interface is a "virtual reality interface," it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the interface described by Groom could be classified as a virtual reality interface. The interface allows the user to interact with a virtual representation of a real environment via their smartphone or tablet).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Groom does not explicitly teach, but Gagne-Keats, however, does teach:
wherein the electronic link indicates where the digital twin is stored (See at least Paragraph 41: The virtual object is linked to the NFT that represents the non-fungible physical asset such that the virtual object in the metaverse is anchored to the non-fungible physical object in the real world. In other words, the NFT includes a link to the virtual object stored in the metaverse).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom and Gagne-Keats in order to provide a public certificate of authenticity or proof of ownership of a tangible asset (Gagne-Keats: Paragraph 3). Providing this proof of ownership allows users to be certain that a virtual object corresponding to the tangible object is owned by a particular individual.
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Groom teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to provide a copy of the digital twin of the object to at least one of (i) an underwriter for an insurance policy on the object and (ii) a claims processor in response to an insurance claim on the object (See at least Col. 17, Line 56 – Col. 18, Line 13: A request for quote is submitted to the selected vendor API, and one or more quotations are received in response. The system may generate an insurance quotation for the tangible objects and attached to the representative objects or representative map associated with the tangible objects).
Claim 19
Regarding Claim 19, Groom teaches:
wherein the object is an antique object or one of a kind object (See at least Col. 6, Line 53 – Col. 7, Line 4: The tangible object represented by the representative object may be a painting created by an artist [i.e., a one of a kind object]).
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Groom teaches:
wherein the object is a consumer product and the at least one processor is further programmed to generate the digital twin from a digital twin of a previously scanned consumer product of the same make and model (See at least Col. 11, Lines 7-23: The representative object may be generated based on previously identified data imported from a CAD or BIM file. For example, the tangible object may comprise a consumer product, such as "picture windows" of a particular manufacturer and model [See Col. 4, Line 66 – Col. 5, Line 19 and Fig. 2A]).
Claim 21
Regarding Claim 21, Groom teaches:
A computer-implemented method for archiving into a digital environment, the computer-implemented method implemented by a computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the computer-implemented method comprising: (See at least Col. 24, Lines 43-67: Describes a system/method for creating a representative map of a real environment. The system comprises a processor and machine-readable storage device):
receiving a three-dimensional (3-D) scan of an object to be archived (See at least Col. 15, Lines 35-60: The system may detect tangible objects in a real environment. This may include performing 3D model generation and image analysis on the real environment via a user's device);
generating a digital twin of the object based on the 3-D scan of the object (See at least Col. 15, Line 61 – Col. 16, Line 5: Data produced by the tangible object detection operations is evaluated to determine if any tangible objects were detected. If at least one tangible object is detected, an associated representative object [i.e., a digital twin] is generated),
receiving, from one or more electronic devices located in a location where the object is present, first supplemental data associated with the object (See at least Col. 11, Lines 7-38: Identifying information [i.e., supplemental data] associate with the tangible object may be gathered and stored in at least one data store. The identifying information may be gathered based on the user identifying the tangible object within a media stream facilitated by a user device [i.e., an electronic device located in a location where the object is present; See Col. 10, Line 55 – Col. 11, Line 6]), and
receive a damage report in connection with the object, the damage report including second supplemental data from the one or more electronic devices, wherein the second supplemental data includes second electronic data relating to a second condition of the object (See at least Col. 6, Lines 13-52: The system may transmit an insurance claim [i.e., a damage report] to an insurance company regarding damage done to one or more of the tangible objects. This may include receiving images of the damage from the user [i.e., second supplemental data]).
Regarding Claim 1, Groom does not explicitly teach, but Gagne-Keats, however, does teach:
generating a non-fungible token (NFT) for the object (See at least Paragraph 41: Describes a system for linking virtual assets and physical assets through non-fungible tokens [NFTs] in a metaverse. The system generates an NFT that represents a unique identifier of a real asset [e.g., non-fungible physical asset]); and
storing in the at least one memory device as part of an archive record corresponding to the object: the NFT; the first supplemental data; and the digital twin of the object with an electronic link between the NFT and the digital twin (See at least Paragraph 41: The NFT is stored on a blockchain. The NFT can be stored on the blockchain as public evidence of ownership of the non-fungible physical asset. A virtual object [i.e., a digital twin] is linked to the NFT that represents the non-fungible physical asset such that the virtual object in the metaverse is anchored to the non-fungible physical object in the real world).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom and Gagne-Keats in order to provide a public certificate of authenticity or proof of ownership of a tangible asset (Gagne-Keats: Paragraph 3). Providing this proof of ownership allows users to be certain that a virtual object corresponding to the tangible object is owned by a particular individual.
Regarding Claim 1, the combination of Groom and Gagne-Keats does not explicitly teach, but Maestas, however, does teach:
wherein the first supplemental data includes first electronic data relating to a first condition of the object that is retrieved from or associated with the one or more electronic devices (See at least Col. 4, Line 11 – Col. 5, Line 3: Describes a process for analyzing damage done to one or more physical objects. The process includes capturing one or more images of the physical objects, and analyzing the images to determine the initial condition of the physical object. The baseline for comparing changes in an object could be determined using a 3D model of the object [i.e., a digital twin; See Paragraph 25]);
detect, based upon a comparison between the digital twin and the second supplemental data, a change in or to the object corresponding to the second condition of the object indicating damage to the object (See at least Col. 4, Line 11 – Col. 5, Line 3: The method may include capturing a second image of the group of physical objects in their modified states [i.e., second supplemental data]. For example, a television may be undamaged in its initial state, but following a hurricane the modified state of the television may include a shattered screen. The method may include detecting differences between the group of objects in their initial states and in their modified states); and
generate output data describing the damage to the object and an amount to repair or replace the object (See at least Col. 4, Lines 46-54: The method can include automatically determining costs for fixing and/or replacing one or more of the physical objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas in order to improve the time-consuming process for determining the cost associated with replacing/repairing items associated with an insurance claim (Maestas: Col. 1, Lines 22-38).
Claim 22
Regarding Claim 22, Groom teaches:
At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor of a computer system for archiving into a digital environment, the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to (See at least Col. 24, Lines 43-67: Describes a system/method for creating a representative map of a real environment. The system comprises a processor and machine-readable storage device):
receive a three-dimensional (3-D) scan of an object to be archived (See at least Col. 15, Lines 35-60: The system may detect tangible objects in a real environment. This may include performing 3D model generation and image analysis on the real environment via a user's device);
generate a digital twin of the object based on the 3-D scan of the object (See at least Col. 15, Line 61 – Col. 16, Line 5: Data produced by the tangible object detection operations is evaluated to determine if any tangible objects were detected. If at least one tangible object is detected, an associated representative object [i.e., a digital twin] is generated),
receive, from one or more electronic devices located in a location where the object is present, first supplemental data associated with the object (See at least Col. 11, Lines 7-38: Identifying information [i.e., supplemental data] associate with the tangible object may be gathered and stored in at least one data store. The identifying information may be gathered based on the user identifying the tangible object within a media stream facilitated by a user device [i.e., an electronic device located in a location where the object is present; See Col. 10, Line 55 – Col. 11, Line 6]), and
receive a damage report in connection with the object, the damage report including second supplemental data from the one or more electronic devices, wherein the second supplemental data includes second electronic data relating to a second condition of the object (See at least Col. 6, Lines 13-52: The system may transmit an insurance claim [i.e., a damage report] to an insurance company regarding damage done to one or more of the tangible objects. This may include receiving images of the damage from the user [i.e., second supplemental data]).
Regarding Claim 1, Groom does not explicitly teach, but Gagne-Keats, however, does teach:
generate a non-fungible token (NFT) for the object (See at least Paragraph 41: Describes a system for linking virtual assets and physical assets through non-fungible tokens [NFTs] in a metaverse. The system generates an NFT that represents a unique identifier of a real asset [e.g., non-fungible physical asset]); and
store in the at least one memory device as part of an archive record corresponding to the object: the NFT; the first supplemental data; and the digital twin of the object with an electronic link between the NFT and the digital twin (See at least Paragraph 41: The NFT is stored on a blockchain. The NFT can be stored on the blockchain as public evidence of ownership of the non-fungible physical asset. A virtual object [i.e., a digital twin] is linked to the NFT that represents the non-fungible physical asset such that the virtual object in the metaverse is anchored to the non-fungible physical object in the real world).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom and Gagne-Keats in order to provide a public certificate of authenticity or proof of ownership of a tangible asset (Gagne-Keats: Paragraph 3). Providing this proof of ownership allows users to be certain that a virtual object corresponding to the tangible object is owned by a particular individual.
Regarding Claim 1, the combination of Groom and Gagne-Keats does not explicitly teach, but Maestas, however, does teach:
wherein the first supplemental data includes first electronic data relating to a first condition of the object that is retrieved from or associated with the one or more electronic devices (See at least Col. 4, Line 11 – Col. 5, Line 3: Describes a process for analyzing damage done to one or more physical objects. The process includes capturing one or more images of the physical objects, and analyzing the images to determine the initial condition of the physical object. The baseline for comparing changes in an object could be determined using a 3D model of the object [i.e., a digital twin; See Paragraph 25]);
detect, based upon a comparison between the digital twin and the second supplemental data, a change in or to the object corresponding to the second condition of the object indicating damage to the object (See at least Col. 4, Line 11 – Col. 5, Line 3: The method may include capturing a second image of the group of physical objects in their modified states [i.e., second supplemental data]. For example, a television may be undamaged in its initial state, but following a hurricane the modified state of the television may include a shattered screen. The method may include detecting differences between the group of objects in their initial states and in their modified states); and
generate output data describing the damage to the object and an amount to repair or replace the object (See at least Col. 4, Lines 46-54: The method can include automatically determining costs for fixing and/or replacing one or more of the physical objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas in order to improve the time-consuming process for determining the cost associated with replacing/repairing items associated with an insurance claim (Maestas: Col. 1, Lines 22-38).
7. Claims 4, 5, and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groom (U.S. Patent No. 11475526) in view of Gagne-Keats (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230237483) and Maestas (U.S. Patent No. 11055531), and in further view of and Oosaka (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20080282182).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas does not explicitly teach, but Oosaka, however, does teach:
wherein the object is a network-connected object that is connected to the computer network, and each of the first supplemental data and the second supplemental data includes, as part of the computer network data, network data specific to the network-connected object (See at least Paragraph 32: Describes a control system for networked home electrical appliances. The system may associate a plurality of home electrical appliances [i.e., smart devices] with a home network [i.e., a computer network] within the user's home. A server may register unique information associated with the home electrical appliances, such as a MAC address of the networked home appliances [i.e., network data; See Paragraph 40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, Maestas, and Oosaka in order to provide a system that allows the user to remotely monitor and control physical objects in their home that are connected to a home network (Oosaka: Paragraphs 2-7).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas does not explicitly teach, but Oosaka, however, does teach:
wherein the electronic device data retrieved from the one or more electronic devices includes at least one of: (i) smart device data retrieved from one or more smart devices that are part of the one or more electronic devices and in communication with the computer network; and (ii) image data from a camera that is part of the one or more electronics devices and in communication with the computer network (See at least Paragraph 32: Describes a control system for networked home electrical appliances. The system may associate a plurality of home electrical appliances [i.e., smart devices] with a home network [i.e., a computer network] within the user's home. A server may register unique information associated with the home electrical appliances, such as the manufacturer name, product name, type, and ID of the newly added home electrical appliance [i.e., smart device data; See Paragraph 40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, Maestas, and Oosaka in order to provide a system that allows the user to remotely monitor and control physical objects in their home that are connected to a home network (Oosaka: Paragraphs 2-7).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Groom does not explicitly teach, but Gagne-Keats, however, does teach:
wherein the object is a network-connected object and the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive ownership information for the network-connected object (See at least Paragraph 41: The NFT can be stored on the blockchain as public evidence of ownership of the non-fungible physical asset. In one example, accompanying data [e.g., metadata] can be stored along with the NFT on the blockchain. The NFT-related data [NFT and metadata] enables verifying ownership of the non-fungible physical asset in a metaverse); and
store the ownership information in the NFT for the network-connected object (See at least Paragraph 41: The accompanying data [e.g., metadata] can be stored along with the NFT on the blockchain. The accompanying data enables verifying ownership of the non-fungible physical asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom and Gagne-Keats in order to provide a public certificate of authenticity or proof of ownership of a tangible asset (Gagne-Keats: Paragraph 3). Providing this proof of ownership allows users to be certain that a virtual object corresponding to the tangible object is owned by a particular individual.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas does not explicitly teach, but Oosaka, however, does teach:
determine, via at least one of the electronic device data and the computer network data, a make and model of the network-connected object (See at least Paragraphs 34-36: The system comprises a member management server that collects and stores information related to the home electrical appliances connected to the home network. This data includes model numbers for the home electrical appliances. The system may also identify a manufacturer name [i.e., a make] associated with the home electrical appliances [See Paragraph 42]); and
wherein the ownership information includes the make and the model of the network-connected object (See at least Paragraphs 34-36: The member management server stores the model number information in association with a particular home server. In other words, the home electrical appliance information is stored with information indicating an owner of the home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, Maestas, and Oosaka in order to provide a system that allows the user to remotely monitor and control physical objects in their home that are connected to a home network (Oosaka: Paragraphs 2-7).
8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groom (U.S. Patent No. 11475526) in view of Gagne-Keats (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230237483) and Maestas (U.S. Patent No. 11055531), and in further view of Chan (U.S. Patent No. 11416065).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas does not explicitly teach, but Chan, however, does teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to allow a user to interact with the digital twin including a haptic response (See at least Col. 11, Lines 20-35: Describes a system that enables realistic haptic and audio feedback for interaction with surfaces on virtual objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, Maestas, and Chan in order to greatly increase a participant's sense of immersion when interacting with objects in a mixed reality (Chan: Col. 1, Lines 23-33).
9. Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groom (U.S. Patent No. 11475526) in view of Gagne-Keats (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230237483) and Maestas (U.S. Patent No. 11055531), and in further view of Matthews (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230073859).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Groom teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive, from the one or more electronic devices, the second supplemental data (See at least Col. 11, Line 39 – Col. 12, Line 7: Additional information, or information of interest [i.e., second supplemental information], related to the TO may be automatically sought to associate with the RO, and may be received from the user. The information may be collected via the user device [See Col. 10, Line 55 – Col. 11, Line 6]. The information may be stored in a dedicated data store [i.e., an archive record] in association with a unique ID of the representative object).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas does not explicitly teach, but Matthews, however, does teach:
detect, based upon at least the second supplemental data, a change in or to the object (See at least Paragraph 64: Describes a system for generating digital twin NFTs [i.e., a digital twin and an NFT] for physical objects. Over time, the system may receive information indicating that the physical condition of the physical object has changed [i.e., supplemental data]);
update, based upon the second supplemental data, the digital twin and the NFT (See at least Paragraph 64: Metadata associated with the digital twin NFT may be updated based on the updated physical condition of the physical object); and
store in the at least one memory device as part of the archive record: the updated NFT; the second supplemental data; and the updated digital twin of the object (See at least Paragraph 32: The digital twin NFT, and any information associated with the digital twin NFT [i.e., supplemental data] may be stored in a third-party storage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, Maestas, and Matthews in order to improve conventional platforms for enabling transferring ownership of physical items by offering functionality that enables transferring ownership of digital twin NFTs for physical items (Matthews: Paragraph 15).
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Groom teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive a claim from an owner of the object for an insurance policy on the object, wherein the object has been damaged or destroyed (See at least Col. 6, Lines 13-52: The system may retrieve information identifying a homeowner's policy, retrieve information relating to the tangible object, and retrieve information relating to the damage for which a claim is being made. Further operations may include assembling the information into a claim form or by generating a claim request and transmitting it through one or more API to the insurance company).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Groom and Gagne-Keats does not explicitly teach, but Maestas, however, does teach:
analyze the digital twin of the object; and determine a value for the object based on the analysis (See at least Col. 4, Lines 10-26: Describes a process for analyzing damage done to one or more physical objects. The process includes capturing one or more images of the physical objects, and analyzing the images to determine the value of the one or more objects in their initial state. The baseline for comparing changes in an object could be determined using 3D model of the object [i.e., a digital twin; See Col. 4, Line 62 – Col. 5, Line 3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas in order to improve the time-consuming process for determining the cost associated with replacing/repairing items associated with an insurance claim (Maestas: Col. 1, Lines 22-38).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Groom teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive a damage report of the object (See at least Col. 6, Lines 13-52: The system may transmit an insurance claim [i.e., a damage report] to an insurance company regarding damage done to one or more of the tangible objects).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Groom and Gagne-Keats does not explicitly teach, but Maestas, however, does teach:
compare the damage report to the digital twin (See at least Col. 4, Lines 27-45: The method may include capturing a second image of the group of physical objects in their modified states. For example, a television may be undamaged in its initial state, but following a hurricane the modified state of the television may include a shattered screen. The method may include detecting differences between the group of objects in their initial states and in their modified states); and
determine at least one of a replacement value or a repair value for the object based on the comparison and the value (See at least Col. 4, Lines 46-54: The method can include automatically determining costs for fixing and/or replacing one or more of the physical objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas in order to improve the time-consuming process for determining the cost associated with replacing/repairing items associated with an insurance claim (Maestas: Col. 1, Lines 22-38).
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groom (U.S. Patent No. 11475526) in view of Gagne-Keats (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230237483) and Maestas (U.S. Patent No. 11055531), and in further view of Abunojaim (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190332723).
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas does not explicitly teach, but Abunojaim, however, does teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to generate one or more build files to 3-D print a complete copy of the object (See at least Paragraph 75-77: Describes a system for generating a 3D model of an object, and outputting the 3D model is a format compatible with a certain 3D printer model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Groom, Gagne-Keats, Maestas, and Abunojaim in order to reduce the limitations of existing 3D printing systems that may only be able to handle a limited set of input/output file formats (Abunojaim: See Paragraph 3).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102/103
12. Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102/103, including supposed deficiencies in the prior art references regarding the amended claims, are not persuasive. The applicant is directed to the discussion of the references of record above in view of the amended claims and the prior art rejections pertaining thereto.
On page 10 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Parts of the recitations in dependent claims 14, 16, 17, and 18 have been added to Claim 1, and as such Claim 1 as amended herein is submitted to be in condition for allowance in view of the remarks on page 27 of the Office Action and for the reasons below.” While the examiner agrees that claim 18 is still allowable over the prior art, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendments to the independent claims sufficiently introduce the limitations of claim 18, and intervening claims 14, 16, and 17, into the independent claims. Rather, only a portion of the limitations of these claims were introduced into the independent claims. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been updated based on the newly added claim amendments, as described in the rejections above. Additionally, the examiner notes that the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has also been withdrawn in response to the applicants claim amendments. A suitable combination of prior art references could not be identified to reasonably cover the limitations of claim 11, including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claim 10. Therefore claim 11 is also objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Additionally, on page 13 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “As explained above, Applicant respectfully submits that the current rejection to Claim 1 has been overcome. Maestas does not cure the deficiencies of Groom, Gagne-Keats, Oosaka, and Matthews. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the current rejections to Claim 16 and 17 have been overcome.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner notes that the combination of Groom, Gagne-Keats, and Maestas does sufficiently cover the limitations of amended claim 1, as described in the rejection above. The applicant is directed to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 for further detail.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brandl (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20240046001): Describes a digital platform and a method for automated risk analysis for a physical property asset are based on image data of a geographic area, geo location parameters for locations in the geographic area and measurement-based risk relevant data for locations in the geographic area. The digital platform is used to generate a location digital twin based on image data of a geographic area, a sub-area including a physical property asset of interest, geo location parameters and the measurement-based risk relevant data of the property asset of interest in the sub area.
Hershey (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20170286572): Describes an apparatus that may implement a digital twin of a twinned physical system such that one or more sensors to sense values of one or more designated parameters of the twinned physical system. A computer processor may receive data associated with the sensors and, for at least a selected portion of the twinned physical system, monitor a condition of the selected portion of the twinned physical system and/or assess a remaining useful life of the selected portion based at least in part on the sensed values of the one or more designated parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights