DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/531,806 filed on 12/07/2023.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO restrictions warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that NO foreign priority claimed at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Information Disclosure Statement
For the record, NO information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Oath/Declaration
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 12/07/2023 has been accepted.
Drawings
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the drawings filed on 12/07/2023 has been accepted.
Specification
For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant's specification filed on 12/07/2023 has been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 17-20 should start with: ‘The non-transitory computer ….’ Because it is dependent to claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Ignatchenko, Pub. No.: US 2024/0350923.
Referring to claim 1, Ignatchenko teaches a method comprising:
downloading an encrypted header of a file from an asset’s storage, the file including a user-created game object to be loaded by a client application (paras. 0042, 0054, 0057 and fig. 2-4, step 202-204, step 304-306 and step 402-404, download the digital assets in encrypted form);
decrypting the encrypted header using a header encryption key retrieved through interaction with a service of a virtual world platform, the decrypted header including cache keys for encrypted and compressed content-defined chunks (i.e., the encrypted assets in paras. 0042, 0054, 0057 and figs. 2-4) that make up the file (paras. 0036, 0042-0043, 0052, 0054-0055, 0057, decrypting the assets and figs. 1-4); and
determining that at least a first content-defined chunk of the encrypted and compressed content-defined chunks that make up the file are already stored in a chunk cache on a client device executing the client application, the chunk cache storing previously downloaded content-defined chunks that are also encrypted and compressed, the determining that the first content-defined chunk is already stored in the chunk cache is performed without decrypting or decompressing the previously downloaded content-defined chunks stored in the chunk cache (paras.: 0021, 0034, 0039, 0055 and figs. 1-4 decompression and compression of digital assets).
Referring to claim 2, Ignatchenko teaches wherein the encrypted header includes encryption keys for content-defined chunks making up the file in addition to the cache keys, the header encryption key is different than the encryption keys for the content-defined chunks (abstract, paras. 0027-0030, 0052, 0056-0057 and fig. 4).
Referring to claim 5, Ignatchenko teaches wherein the first content-defined chunk stored at the asset’s storage was compressed by a first compression algorithm, and the content-defined chunks stored in the chunk cache were compressed by a second compression algorithm (paras. 0021-0022, digital assets may be compressed).
Referring to claim 7, Ignatchenko teaches further comprising: decrypting the second content-defined chunk using a second content-defined chunk specific encryption key obtained from the decrypted header to yield a decrypted second content-defined chunk; decompressing the second content-defined chunk that is compressed using a first compression algorithm and recompressing the second content-defined chunk using a second compression algorithm; re-encrypting the chunk using the content-defined chunk specific encryption key obtained from the decrypted header; and storing the encrypted content-defined chunk in the chunk cache (para. 0034, 0055 and fig. 3).
Referring to claim 10, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 11, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 13, This claim is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 15, This claim is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 16, This claim is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 17, This claim is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached pto-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 571-272-3951. 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.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 02/12/2026