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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15 recite “the real-time value being generated by counting a plurality of positive inputs received from a plurality of user accounts”. Applicant doesn’t have support for the underlined portion. Paragraph [0099] describes generating real-time value by counting a plurality of positive inputs but it doesn’t mention that positive inputs received from plurality of user accounts.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 also recite “at least one user device of the plurality of user devices being associated with a second user account that has not submitted a positive input for the virtual location”. Applicant doesn’t have support for underlined portions. Paragraph [0098] describes transmitting warning alert interface component to a plurality of user devices but doesn’t describe a second user account that has not submitted a positive input for the virtual location.
Claims 3-8, 11-14 and 17-22 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 21 recites “generate a virtual computing environment avatar associated with the second user account; identify an avatar location of the virtual computing environment avatar associated with the second user account; determine that the avatar location corresponds to the virtual location; and render, based on the determination that the avatar location corresponds to the virtual location, the warning alert interface component in the virtual computing environment at a user device associated with the second user account”. Applicant doesn’t have support for generating, identifying, determining and rendering of second user avatar.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 recite “wherein the warning alert interface component comprises a real-time value at the virtual location”. Claims 4, 12 and 18 also recite same limitation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/08/2026 with respect to rejection under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues see remarks page 11 “Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 21 has been amended in order to obviate these rejections and respectfully requests these rejections be withdrawn in light of the amendments and remarks found herein. See, Applicant's Specification paragraphs [0092]-[0094] and [0111]-[0115]”.
Examiner wants to note that none of the paragraph describes generating second user avatar and identifying avatar location of second user. As generating and identifying steps are missing so determining and rendering steps are invalid.
Applicant argues see remarks pages14 “Indeed, Applicant respectfully submits that the references, individually or in combination, fail to disclose all the limitations of at least the independent claims. For instance, the independent claims recite, "overlay the warning alert interface component on the virtual computing environment at a virtual location associated with the geolocation coordinate or the entity identifier, wherein the warning alert interface component comprises a real-time value at the virtual location, the real-time value being generated by counting a plurality of positive inputs received from a plurality of user accounts for the at least one geolocation coordinate or the at least one entity identifier, and wherein the warning alert interface component further comprises data of a plurality of false historical resource transmissions at the at least one geolocation coordinate or the at least one entity identifier with personally identifiable information of each user account that submitted a positive input of the plurality of positive inputs redacted therefrom………user should avoid at a future time”.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC 103 rejection, examiner wants to note that as there are multiple 112(a) rejections for independent claims the prior art are not analyzed. It will analyzed when 112(a) rejection is fixed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights