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 .
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 1-18 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 and 10, the inclusion of amendment has made some portion of the limitations to be new matter.
Amended limitations 1 and 10 recites, “partnering, via the server, the first client device and the second client device with each other on a basis of a difference in respective processing capabilities between the first client device and the second client device being above a threshold difference, wherein, once partnered, the first client device and the second client device are logically paired at the server such that, in response to both the first client device and the second client device being logged into the multi-user virtual platform at the same time, the second client device automatically acts as a rendering peer for the first client device;” Here the second device acts as rendering peer for the first device.
Then applicant recites, “responsive to determining, via the server, and based on the indications, that the second client device has higher processing capability than the first client device, selecting the second client device as a rendering peer for the first client device;” This portion doesn’t have support because specification [0151] clearly indicates block 404, 406 will not be implemented again but claim is reciting to implement step 404 and 406.
See “[0151]…. Once partnered, whenever the first client device 104-1 and the second client device 104-2 are logged into the multi-user virtual platform at the same time, the controller 202 and/or the server 102 may automatically implement the blocks 408, 410, 412, for example without again implementing the blocks 404, 406.”
Therefore claim 1 and 10 are rejected under new matter.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In independent claims 1 and 10, the rendering peer for the first device is decided twice, once in the amended limitation “partnering the first client device and the second client device with each other on a basis of a difference in respective processing capabilities between the first client device and the second client device being above a threshold difference, wherein, once partnered, the first client device and the second client device are logically paired at the server such that, in response to both the first client device and the second client device being logged into the multi-user virtual platform at the same time, the second client device automatically acts as a rendering peer for the first client device;” and again in the following limitation, “responsive to determining, based on the indications, that the second client device has higher processing capability than the first client device, select the second client device as a rendering peer for the first client device;”
The limitations are ambiguous because if the second client device already acts as rendering peer, we can’t select the second client device as a rendering peer of the of the first device. As a result the claim is indefinite as the scope is not clear.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Examiner’s Note
As the amended claim’s scope can’t be decided, the prior art can’t be properly searched and prior art rejection can’t be performed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pages 17-20, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argues, see remarks Page 20, “Rather, at amended claim 1, the second client device has, itself provided its processing-capability indication at registration or login, and is partnered with the first client device based on a threshold difference in respective processing capabilities. Once both client devices are logged into the platform at the same time, the second client device automatically, and advantageously, acts as the rendering peer for the first client device……
Paez is relied upon only for transmitting data to a second computing device and rendering a cooperative VR environment at that second computing device, not for obtaining device capability indications at registration or login, partnering first and second client devices based on a threshold difference in their respective processing capabilities, or logically pairing the client devices at the server such that the second client device automatically acts as a rendering peer upon simultaneous login.”
Examiner replies, applicant’s argument is persuasive for the portion of the amended claim that recites second device’s automatically acting as a rendering peer of the first device on basis of a difference in respective processing capabilities between the first client device and the second client device being above a threshold difference is not taught by prior art of record.
However due to 25 USC 112(a) and 112(b) issues, the prior art rejection can’t be decided at this point.
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
