DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- update the cross-reference -- in [0001].
-- include an the -- should be rephrased in [0028].
-- at leas in -- should be corrected in [0060].
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
-- operations 1250/1350/1450 indicating an arrow to nowhere -- in figs. 12, 13, 14 respectively.
-- 102j should be removed or made of dotted lines from block 1252 worker 103a and from 1452 worker 103c -- since these represent the state after the reassignment operation.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “spatial partition data saturation information” without clearly reciting what is the spatial partition data saturation information.
Claim 7 recites “spatial partition data saturation information is used to determine whether at least one or more spatial partitions requires splitting, has an acceptable amount of data saturation, or is available for merging. It is unclear what are the conditions that indicates partition requires splitting, merging or acceptable amount of data saturation. It is also unclear what is meant by acceptable amount of data saturation.
Claims 5 and 13 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6-12 and 14-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
Based upon at least the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), post-Alice precedential court decisions, and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “partitioning and manipulating simulated space into spatial partitions based on given partition information, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a system comprising memory/processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 5 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 13 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which falls within “machine/manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Claim
i
1. A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored therein instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
generic computing
ii
receiving, by a first worker of a plurality of workers, spatial partition data saturation information relating to one or more spatial partitions assigned to one or more applications allocated to the first worker,
information gathering
iii
wherein the plurality of workers execute in association with a simulated space that is divided into a plurality of spatial partitions,
mental process abstract idea
iv
wherein each spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions is assigned to a corresponding application that performs acts related to state associated with the spatial partition, and
mental process abstract idea
v
wherein at least one spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions has a state dependency on at least one other spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions;
mental process abstract idea
vi
performing, by the first worker, based at least in part on the spatial partition data saturation information, a first partition manipulation,
mental process abstract idea
vii
the first partition manipulation including splitting of a parent spatial partition of the one or more spatial partitions into child spatial partitions or merging the child spatial partitions into the parent spatial partition; and
mental process abstract idea
viii
transmitting, by the first worker, to a simulation manger, a request for acceptance of the first partition manipulation,
information transmission
ix
wherein the simulation manager transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers.
information transmission
The overall process described by steps [iii]-[vii] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps [iii]-[vii] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, step [iii] recites “ wherein the plurality of workers execute in association with a simulated space that is divided into a plurality of spatial partitions”. Dividing space into multiple partitions, can be performed by human mind alone and or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 step [iv] recites “wherein each spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions is assigned to a corresponding application that performs acts related to state associated with the spatial partition”, which is directed to assigning application to the partitions based on the related state, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Claim 1 step [v] recites “wherein at least one spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions has a state dependency on at least one other spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions;”, which is describes dependency of one partition on other and is directed to mapping partitions based on the dependency and is also is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Claim 1 step [vi] recites “performing, by the first worker, based at least in part on the spatial partition data saturation information, a first partition manipulation”, which is directed to manipulating partition based on given partition data information, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Claim 1 step [vii] recites “the first partition manipulation including splitting of a parent spatial partition of the one or more spatial partitions into child spatial partitions or merging the child spatial partitions into the parent spatial partition”, which is directed to splitting and merging of partitions and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, steps [iii]-[vii] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, and based on similar analysis, claims 5 and 13 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 5 and 13 recite a judicial exception, analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[ii], and [viii]-[ix]. claim 1 in step [i] recites “a computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored therein instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations”, which is directed to generic computing. these generic computing components e.g. memories, processors, are and not considered an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. see MPEP § 2106.04(d). Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “receiving, by a first worker of a plurality of workers, spatial partition data saturation information relating to one or more spatial partitions assigned to one or more applications allocated to the first worker”, which is directed to information gathering. Information gathering is considered insignificant extra solution activity and don’t provide any improvement in the functioning of a computer technology or technical field. Therefore, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception may not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) I. § 2106.05(g). Claim 1 steps [viii] and [ix] is directed to information transmission between the manager and worker. Transmitting information between two entity is commonly performed and may not provide improvement to technology and/or technical field to integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[ii] and [viii]-[ix] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, these additional claim elements recited in claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation, either alone or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 5 and 13 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 5 and 13 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Regarding the processors, memories as recited in claim 1 step [i], the conventional or generalized function terms by which the computer components are described reasonably indicate that Specification discloses conventional component, and describes the component in a manner that indicates that these elements are sufficient well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation in the combination. Additional claim elements recited in step [ii] is directed to information gathering, according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and is considered well-understood, routine and conventional. See, Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. Additional claim elements recited in steps [viii] and [ix] is directed to information transmission, which is also considered well-understood, routine and conventional, according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014). These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. As such, it has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, “network”, and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”).
Thus, Claim1 is directed to the mental process abstract idea without additional claim elements that would cause integration into practical application and /or don’t amount to significantly more. Based on similar analysis as above, independent claims 5 and 13 recite claim elements that are directed to abstract idea without reciting additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre/post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “generating partition metadata associated with the first partition manipulation, wherein the partition metadata indicates at least one of an identifier of a highest-level ancestor partition, an identifier of the parent spatial partition, a partition depth, or a child spatial partition quantity”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, these limitations are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the merging of the child spatial partitions is based at least in part on determinations that the child spatial partitions are all assigned to a same application of the one or more applications and that all of the child spatial partitions are available for merging”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, these limitations are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “wherein parent spatial partition is split based at least in part on a determination that the parent spatial partition has at or above a threshold of entities”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, these limitations are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 6-12 and 14-20 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre / post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loodin Ek (US 2022/0343594 A1, hereafter Loodin) in view of Segawa et al. (US 2007/0013701 A1, hereafter Segawa).
As per claim 1, Loodin teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a computing system comprising (fig. 6 10 ):
one or more processors (fig. 6 20 24 ); and
one or more memories having stored therein instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors (fig. 6 48, 46, 40 44), cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a first worker of a plurality of workers, spatial partition data saturation information relating to one or more spatial partitions assigned to one or more applications allocated to the first worker ([0004] receiving an initial world definition, corresponding to a game world of video game, spatially partitioning, based on the world definition; fig. 1B client 110 computing system 120 application host system 122 fig. 5 502),
wherein the plurality of workers execute in association with a simulated space that is divided into a plurality of spatial partitions ([0028] fig. 1B, client 102 computing system 120 application host system 122 [0004] spatially partitioning the game world into one or more zones based on the world definition to obtain a zone map of the game world [0031] application host system 122, host persistent virtual environment, part of game application, client 102 may host a client portion of the game application 110, virtual environment ) ,
wherein each spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions is assigned to a corresponding application that performs acts related to state associated with the spatial partition ([0022] spatial partitioning, different portions of zones, partitioned virtual world, The 2D squares may be rendered separately, quadtree, objects within the zones, graphics processing operations, performed, partitioned virtual environment [0021] objects, virtual items i.e. applications, objects, can be anything that can be in a virtual environment e.g. object can be rock, grass, mountains, tree etc [0031] a virtual environment, such as educational software, language learning software, and social networking applications), and
wherein at least one spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions has a state dependency on at least one other spatial partition of the plurality of spatial partitions ([0096] spatial partitioning, different partitions, zones, grassland, adjacent to other zones, zones of different types [0101] reverse quadtree i.e. dependency, order, additional zones, zones or object within zones, zone map 300, quadtree i.e. dependency, built from the root node to the leaf nodes);
performing, by the first worker, based at least in part on the spatial partition data saturation information, a first partition manipulation ([0100] spatial partitioning process on the zone map to form delineate a new partition 314 [0102] delineate one or more zones and/or partitions based on the position and/or type of objects, zone map doubled [0105] [0130] adding/ deleting or replacing one zone with other zone [0131] receives new zone definition, modifies the game world, addition /deletion of zone, movement/change new zone definition, data, define, area/zone, game world [0115] fig. 4A rendering, ray casting, virtual environment, zone map, computing resource 103 e.g. graphics card, execution of game application, select object to manipulate [0116] determine the zones, zone to render, zones, omitted from rendering),
the first partition manipulation including splitting of a parent spatial partition of the one or more spatial partitions into child spatial partitions or merging the child spatial partitions into the parent spatial partition ( [0101] reverse quadtree, quadtree [0102] delineate one or more zones and/or partitions based on the position and/or type of objects, zone map doubled [0105] [0130] adding / deleting or replacing one zone with other zone); and
transmitting, by the first worker, to a simulation manger, a request for acceptance of the first partition manipulation, wherein the simulation manager transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers.
Loodin doesn’t specifically teach transmitting, by the first worker, to a simulation manger, a request for acceptance of the first partition manipulation, wherein the simulation manager transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers.
Segawa, however, teaches transmitting, by the first worker, to a simulation manger, a request for acceptance of the first partition manipulation ([0018] receive the message for update [0019] plurality of computers, each managing i.e. acting as simulation manager a virtual space, message for the update is distributed to the other computers, transmitting the message to other computer [0055] virtual space coordinate managing section 20 message receiving section 11 [0200] message for an update e.g. new creation, addition, change, deletion [0009]), wherein the simulation manager transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers ([0018] receive the message for update [0019] plurality of computers each partly managing i.e. acting as simulation manager a virtual space, updates a status of the virtual space, message for update is distributed i.e. distributing updates also acts as acceptance indication to other computers by sequentially transmitting the message to an adjacent computer; determining whether the same message ID has been recorded, when the same message ID has been recorded, end i.e. reject a process, same message id has not been recorded, distribute the message i.e. accept, adjacent computer, on the basis of read address information, virtual/physical topology ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Loodin with the teachings of Segawa of a computer updates a status of the virtual space, message for the update is distributed to other computers if the message id has not been recorded to improve efficiency and allow transmitting, by the first worker, to a simulation manger, a request for acceptance of the first partition manipulation, wherein the simulation manager transmits indications of accepted partition manipulations to the plurality of workers to the method of Loodin as in the instant invention.
The combination of cited analogous prior art would have been obvious because applying the known method of distributing updates message to the adjacent computers if the message id has not already been recorded as taught by Segawa to known method of spatial partitioning taught by Loodin to yield predictable result with improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Loodin teaches generating partition metadata associated with the first partition manipulation, wherein the partition metadata indicates at least one of an identifier of a highest-level ancestor partition ([0004] generating first reverse quadtree corresponding to the game word based on the zone map [0022] partitioned virtual world may be represented by a tree such as a quadtree, root node), an identifier of the parent spatial partition ([0022] intermediate nodes), a partition depth, or a child spatial partition quantity ([0022] leaf nodes).
As per claim 3, Loodin teaches wherein the merging of the child spatial partitions is based at least in part on determinations that the child spatial partitions are all assigned to a same application of the one or more applications and that all of the child spatial partitions are available for merging ([0125] aggregating i.e. merging adjacent zones that are identical in type, or dividing the game world into larger zones [0130] modifies the game world by, adding/deleting or replacing one zone with another zone ).
As per claim 4, Loodin teaches wherein parent spatial partition is split based at least in part on a determination that the parent spatial partition has at or above a threshold of entities ([0004] partitioning game world, zones, new zone definition, modification to the virtual environment [0024] process of spatial partitioning and the creation of quadtree defining the virtual environment is repeated numerous time [0025] spatial partitioning and reverse tree generation process, starting from a smallest port of zone, expanding up towards root node [0084] up to four i.e. threshold leaves/branch [0125] dividing the game world into larger zones [0130] modifies the game world by, adding/deleting or replacing one zone with another zone).
Claim 5 recites computer-implemented method for the elements similar to some of claim 1. Therefore it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 6 recites computer-implemented method for elements similar to some of claim 1. Therefore it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 7, Loodin teaches wherein the spatial partition data saturation information is used to determine whether at least one of the one or more spatial partitions requires splitting, has an acceptable amount of data saturation, or is available for merging ([0004] initial world definition, game world, specifies features of a virtual environment, spatially partitioning the game world into one or more zones based on the world definition to obtain a zone map [0125] dividing the game world into larger zones [0130] modifies the game world by, adding/deleting or replacing one zone with another zone).
Claim 8 recites computer-implemented method for elements similar to claim 2. Therefore it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 9 recites computer-implemented method for elements similar to some of claim 3. Therefore it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 10 recites computer-implemented method for elements similar to part of claim 3. Therefore it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 11, Loodin teaches reassigning one or more of the child spatial partitions to be assigned to a same application as one or more other of the child spatial partitions based on a determination that all of the child spatial partitions are available for merging ([0130] modifies the game world by, adding/deleting or replacing one zone with another zone [0004] initial world definition, game world, specifies features of a virtual environment, spatially partitioning the game world into one or more zones based on the world definition to obtain a zone map [0125] aggregating i.e. merging adjacent zones that are identical in type, or dividing the game world into larger zones).
Claim 12 recites computer-implemented method for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon computing instructions that, upon execution by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations similar to part of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising elements similar to part of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected fort the same rationale.
Claim 15 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising elements similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected fort the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected fort the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising elements similar to part of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected fort the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising elements similar to part of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected fort the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising elements similar to claim 11. Therefore, it is rejected fort the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising elements similar to claim 12. Therefore, it is rejected fort the same rationale.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195