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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ communication filed on May 30, 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently presented in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on May 30, 2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (US 12450595 B1) in view of Niles (US 20180374268 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Paul discloses a system (Paul, see col. 4, lines 36-41) for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, the system comprising:
at least one network communication interface (Paul, see col. 4, lines 36-41, Virtual resource migration system 160 may receive the request to transfer using a communication subsystem 162. For example, virtual resource migration system 160 may receive the data from a user at a first user device 150A via a user interface thereon via a communication network 140.);
at least one non-transitory storage device (Paul, see col. 3, lines 9-20, Environment 100 of FIG. 1 shows an illustrative system for transferring resources between networks, in accordance with one or more embodiments of this disclosure. For example, environment 100 may facilitate transfer of a first resource type of a plurality of resource types from a first network to a second network, in particular where the first resource type is not compatible with the second network. In one example, a user may wish to transfer a local virtual machine to a cloud network, e.g., for accessibility or integration with other services. However, a local virtual machine may not be compatible with processors, storage, and networking of physical servers of the cloud network); and
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device and the at least one network communication interface (Paul, see co. 12, lines 44-48, Computing system 500 may include one or more processors (e.g., processors 510a-510n) coupled to system memory 520, an input/output (I/O) device interface 530, and a network interface 540 via an I/O interface 550.), wherein the at least one processing device is configured to:
receive a request to view at least one resource of a plurality of resources from a user in a mixed reality environment (Paul. See col. 15, lines 6-16, At operation 602, one or more of processors 510a-510n receive a request to transfer one or more virtual resources from a first user to a second user, wherein the first user uses a first network and the second user uses a second network. For example, virtual resource migration system 160 may use one or more processors 510a, 510b, and/or 510n to perform the receiving. The processor(s) may receive the request through a first user device. One or more of processors 510a-510n may receive the data over communication network 140 using network interface 540.), via a user device;
determine that a digital representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources does not exist in a data repository (Paul, col. 7, lines 30-36. In the example where the first resource type is points and the second resource type is a digital representation of currency or cash, the transform parameters may include an exchange rate (e.g., 10 points is equivalent to 2 USD). For example, as described herein, credit card points may not be supported as a resource type on a second network);
instantaneously generate the digital representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources based on communicating with one or more external systems (Paul, see col. 8, lines 12-24, In the example of FIG. 3B, there are three entries shown corresponding to identifiers corresponding to different requests. For example, the first entry “entry_1” corresponds to a request identifier “8891” and stores a virtual resource having a resource identifier “resource_b”. The second entry, “entry_2,” corresponds to a request identifier “8892” and stores virtual resources with resource identifiers “resource_a”. In the example that the first resource type is points and the second resource type is a digital representation of currency or cash through networks such as online banking and/or payment applications, the resource stored may be a digital representation of currency or cash, and the repository may store the resource as a parameter indicating an amount.);
store the generated digital representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources in the data repository (Paul, see col.6, lines 20-30 FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary representation of a first user repository 310, such as first user repository 132A within the first network. The first user repository 310 may store virtual resources of the first resource type at a first network, in accordance with one or more embodiments of this disclosure. In some embodiments, the first user repository may store the virtual resources of the first resource type assigned to or associated with the first user. Alternatively or additionally, the first user repository may store the virtual resources of the first resource type of groups of users or all users having virtual resources at the first network.);
Paul does not disclose instantaneously generate an immersive representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources based on the generated digital representation, and display, based on the request, at least a part of the immersive representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources in the mixed reality environment of the user. However,
Niles discloses:
instantaneously generate an immersive representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources based on the generated digital representation (Niles, see at least par. 0047] The present disclosure describes systems, devices, and techniques related to autonomously and/or automatically customizing a broadcasted mixed reality immersive environment or scene of a real-world event, including an active live event. According to the embodiments described herein, a system including multiple capture devices, a remote processing unit, and a user device may cooperate to simulate the manipulation of an immersive representation of a physical environment of the real-world event. This may allow a user to “control” the user experience of a real-world event, such as an active broadcasted live event, by using augmented reality/virtual reality/mixed reality/artificial intelligence (collectively referred to herein as “Mixed Reality Immersive” or “MRI Platform”) or any other type of immersive reality which would allow at least one user to be “virtually” placed within an active broadcasted live event such as in the bleacher/stands/stadium and/or on the playing field/stage and allowing a user to control movement and/or any other user interaction. Allowing a user to become an autonomously mixed reality immersive player or spectator within an active live event provides for an enhanced user experience of a broadcasted live event and/or mixed reality immersive environment/scene.); and
display, based on the request, at least a part of the immersive representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources in the mixed reality environment of the user (Niles, see at least par. [0063], the user 100 is capable of interacting/controlling events within the broadcasted MRI Platform through voice command, hand selection, motion (e.g. head, body, eyes, hand, and feet) as an example, but is not limited. For example, a remote user device (e.g., user device 101 of FIG. 1) may detect various characteristics of the input, such as a magnitude, a direction, a position, a volume, a speech pattern, and so, and the remote processing unit may use this detected input to modify the mixed reality environment, including generating or modifying the constructed asset in order to simulate manipulation of the immersive representation of the physical environment. In addition, a broadcasted MRI Platform “point of view” may be selected by a user such as the field point of view 203a for example, and user may change point of view throughout the broadcasted MRI Platform. Additionally, the broadcasted live event 200 displayed/outputted on the smart device 115 may have a different scene (visual display) then what is shown in the MRI Platform that the user is interacting with and/or the smart device 115 may be used to initiate/ activate the MRI Platform when user device is within proximity or when user makes a gesture (e.g. points, hold up, or motion) with the user device in the direction of the smart device. Alternatively, the smart device 115 may allow for a picture-in-picture and display/output (e.g. alongside, on top of broadcasted live event) to display both live event and the MRI Platform (not shown).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Flockhart, with display, based on the request, at least a part of the immersive representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources in the mixed reality environment of the user; and display, based on the request, at least a part of the immersive representation of the at least one resource of the plurality of resources in the mixed reality environment of the user, as provided by Flockhart. The modification provide an improved system and method for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, therefore to provide intelligent, dynamic evaluation of requests and resource optimization (Flockhart, see par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 8. Paul discloses a computer program product (Paul, see col. 12, lines 44-58) for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, the computer program product performs the same steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15. The computer program product of claim 15 performs the same steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (US 12450595 B1) in view of Niles (US 20180374268 A1), as applied claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Flockhart et al. (US 20110044320 A1).
Regarding claim 2. Paul in view of Niles discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), but Paul in view of Niles does not disclose wherein the at least one processing device is configured to allow the user to perform a comparison of immersive representations of at least two resources of the plurality of resources. However,
Flockhart discloses:
wherein the at least one processing device is configured to allow the user to perform a comparison of immersive representations of at least two resources of the plurality of resources (Flockhart, see at least par. [0056] Once the resource bit tables have been intelligently modified or organized according to the context, the routing engine 120 is adapted to analyze the resource bit tables of a first resource 112 in the plurality of resources, possibly by comparing some or all of the resource bit tables with a work item bit table to determine if the first resource is eligible or ineligible to receive the work item based on whether the first resource comprises the necessary skills to handle the work item (step 612). If the first resource does not have all of the necessary skills to handle the work item (step 616), then the routing engine 120 will continue by discarding the first resource as an ineligible resource 112 from the decision making process (step 620). If, however, the first resource possesses the necessary skills, then the routing engine 120 will continue by analyzing the work in each skill (step 624) to determine if the work in each skill can be supported by the first resource 112 (step 628). This can be done by analyzing a separate bit table of the resource or by analyzing a different portion of the same bit table that was previously analyzed in steps 612 and 616. If the resource successfully passes this analysis, then the first resource is determined to be eligible. If it fails the inquiry of step 628, then the routing engine 120 discards the first resource as ineligible (step 620).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Flockhart, with wherein the at least one processing device is configured to allow the user to perform a comparison of immersive representations of at least two resources of the plurality of resources, as provided by Flockhart. The modification provide an improved system and method for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, therefore to provide intelligent, dynamic evaluation of requests and resource optimization (Flockhart, see par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 3. Paul in view of Niles discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), but Paul in view of Niles does not disclose wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: receive a second request from the user to determine a best resource of the plurality of resources; perform a comparison of the plurality of resources; and determine the best resource of the plurality of resources based at least on performing the comparison of the plurality of resources. However,
Flockhart discloses:
wherein the at least one processing device is configured to:
receive a second request from the user to determine a best resource of the plurality of resources (Flockhart, see at least par. [0036] In accordance with at least some embodiments of the present invention, the work item is sent toward a collection of processing resources 112 via the routing mechanism 116. The routing mechanism 116 comprises a routing engine 120 which enables the routing mechanism 116 to make intelligent routing decisions for the work item. More specifically, the routing engine 120 can determine which of the plurality of processing resources 112 is eligible to receive the work item and further determine which of the plurality of processing resources 112 is best suited to handle the processing needs of the work item.);
perform a comparison of the plurality of resources (Flockhart, see at least par. [0049] In the example depicted in FIG. 3, if the first three most significant bits were being used to determine the eligibility of resources 112, then only the resource 112 corresponding to the first resource bit table 408a would be considered eligible since none of the other depicted resource bit tables match the first three most significant bits of the work item bit table 404. If, however, there were two or more resources 112 that were deemed to be eligible resources, then the routing engine 120 may be further adapted to scan the resource bit tables 408 in a bit-by-bit fashion comparing each resource bit table 408 against the other resource bit tables 408 to determine which resource 112 is the best resource to receive the work item. This process is depicted in further detail in FIG. 5.); and
determine the best resource of the plurality of resources based at least on performing the comparison of the plurality of resources (see at least par. [0048] In accordance with at least some embodiments of the present invention, the routing engine 120 may be adapted to perform a two-part analysis during work item routing. More particularly, the routing engine 120 may first determine which resources 112 are eligible to receive the work item (or conversely determine which resources are ineligible to receive the work item). Once a set of resources 112 have been determined to be ineligible, the routing engine 120 may further analyze the eligible resources 112 to further determine which resource among the remaining resources 112 is the best resource to receive the work item. Thus, the eligibility comparisons may be performed on a first set of most significant bits (e.g., the first three or four significant bits) and then the ultimate routing decision can be based on a further analysis of the remaining most significant bits in the resource bit tables 408a-N. In other words, bit position may be used to determine preference or score for best match algorithms.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Flockhart, with wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: receive a second request from the user to determine a best resource of the plurality of resources; perform a comparison of the plurality of resources; and determine the best resource of the plurality of resources based at least on performing the comparison of the plurality of resources, as provided by Flockhart. The modification provide an improved system and method for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, therefore to provide intelligent, dynamic evaluation of requests and resource optimization (Flockhart, see par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 4. Paul in view of Niles and Flockhart discloses the system of claim 3 (as rejected above), and Paul in view of Niles and Flockhart further discloses wherein the at least one processing device is configured to compare the plurality of resources based on one or more factors, wherein the one or more factors comprise at least one of resource information present in the immersive representation of each of the plurality of resources, geographical location of each of the plurality of resources, environment information associated with each of the plurality of resources, user preferences, historical resource acquisition data of the user, and historical resource acquisition data of users with similar characteristics as that of the user (Flockhart, see at least par. [0034] The communication devices 108 may correspond to customer communication devices. In accordance with at least some embodiments of the present invention, a customer may utilize their communication device 108 to initiate a work item, which is generally a request for a processing resource 112. Exemplary work items include, but are not limited to, a contact directed toward and received at a contact center, a web page request directed toward and received at a server farm (e.g., collection of servers), a media request, an application request (e.g., a request for application resources location on a remote application server, such as a SIP application server), and the like. The work item may be in the form of a message or collection of messages transmitted over the communication network 104. For example, the work item may be transmitted as a telephone call, a packet or collection of packets (e.g., IP packets transmitted over an IP network), an email message, an Instant Message, an SMS message, a fax, and combinations thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Flockhart, with wherein the at least one processing device is configured to compare the plurality of resources based on one or more factors, wherein the one or more factors comprise at least one of resource information present in the immersive representation of each of the plurality of resources, geographical location of each of the plurality of resources, environment information associated with each of the plurality of resources, user preferences, historical resource acquisition data of the user, and historical resource acquisition data of users with similar characteristics as that of the user, as provided by Flockhart. The modification provide an improved system and method for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, therefore to provide intelligent, dynamic evaluation of requests and resource optimization (Flockhart, see par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 9. The computer program product of claim 9 performs the same steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 2 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 10. The computer program product of claim 10 performs the same steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11. The computer program product of claim 11 performs the same steps of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16. The computer implemented method of claim 16 performs the same steps of claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17. The computer implemented method of claim 17, performs the same steps of claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18. The computer implemented method of claim 18, performs the same steps of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (US 12450595 B1) in view of Niles (US 20180374268 A1), further view of Flockhart et al. (US 20110044320 A1), as applied claim 4 and further in view of Bidkar et al. (US 20230116263 A1).
Regarding claim 5. Paul in view of Niles and Flockhart discloses the system of claim 4 (as rejected above), and Paul in view of Niles and Flockhart does not disclose wherein the at least one processing device is configured to calculate a score for each of the plurality of resources based on the one or more factors to determine the best resource of the plurality of resources. However,
Bidkar discloses:
wherein the at least one processing device is configured to calculate a score for each of the plurality of resources based on the one or more factors to determine the best resource of the plurality of resources (Bidkar, see at least par. [0044] The computational module 112c may perform one or more computational functions to determine a best resource (e.g., best site, best region, best entity user or associate) to handle the request. For instance, computational module 112c may implement a load balancer to identify a best available cloud region to address the request (e.g., underutilized clouds or clouds having low volume may be assigned more requests than others having higher volume). Additionally or alternatively, computational module 112c may calculate a score for each entity user or resource to determine a best available resource to handle a request. In some examples, the score may be based on various factors, such as a number of issues or errors in processing requests, an identification of ways to improve performance, an output of one or more computer adaptive tests, and the like.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Paul, with wherein the at least one processing device is configured to calculate a score for each of the plurality of resources based on the one or more factors to determine the best resource of the plurality of resources, as provided by Bidkar. The modification provide an improved system and method for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, therefore to provide intelligent, dynamic evaluation of requests and resource optimization (Bidkar, see par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 12. The computer program product of claim 12 performs the same steps of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 5 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (US 12450595 B1) in view of Niles (US 20180374268 A1), as applied claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of TUSCH (US 20180018508 A1).
Regarding claim 6. Paul in view of Niles discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), but Paul in view of Niles dose not discloses wherein the at least one processing device is configured to generate the digital representation of each of the plurality of resources based on extracting, from the one or more external systems, at least one of dimensions, features, upgrades, condition, and historical damages associated with the plurality of resources. However,
TUSCH discloses:
wherein the at least one processing device is configured to generate the digital representation of each of the plurality of resources based on extracting, from the one or more external systems, at least one of dimensions, features, upgrades, condition, and historical damages associated with the plurality of resources (TUSCH, see pars. [0129-0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Paul, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to generate the digital representation of each of the plurality of resources based on extracting, from the one or more external systems, at least one of dimensions, features, upgrades, condition, and historical damages associated with the plurality of resources, as provided by TUSCH. The modification provide an improved system and method for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, therefore to be able to monitor, contextualize and predict human behaviour as well as guarantee privacy. Smart Homes need to place the person at the heart of and in control of the home. Smart Home systems need to be functionally rich, accurate, predictable and able to interpret human behaviour. Current available solutions on the market are unable to deliver. (TUSCH, see par. [0007]).
Regarding claim 13. The computer program product of claim 13 performs the same steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19. The computer implemented method of claim 19, performs the same steps of claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 6 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (US 12450595 B1) in view of Niles (US 20180374268 A1), as applied claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Marrotte et al. (US 20250045180 A1).
Regarding claim 7. Paul in view of Niles discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), but Paul in view of Niles dose not discloses wherein the at least one processing device is configured to allow the user to simulate one or more tests on each of the plurality of resources. However,
Marrotte discloses:
wherein the at least one processing device is configured to allow the user to simulate one or more tests on each of the plurality of resources (Marrotte, see at least par. [0098] As can be seen, the technology described herein facilitates customizable and precise fault injection process tailored for public cloud environments. This allows users to simulate and test different failure scenarios by applying various combinations of fault duration modes and failure modes to specific resources in availability zones).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and apparatus of Paul, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to allow the user to simulate one or more tests on each of the plurality of resources, as provided by Marrotte. The modification provide an improved system and method for generating digital representation of resources to perform real-time comparison and assessment of resources, therefore to simulate availability zone faults. In addition, because former approaches are manual, they typically require a large amount of input from subject matter experts to make sure an approach will properly simulate a zone failure. (Marrotte, see par. [0002]).
Regarding claim 14. The computer program product of claim 14 performs the same steps of claim 7. Therefore, claim 9 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 2 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20. The computer implemented method of claim 20, performs the same steps of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 6 set forth above and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM THANH THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, ALICIA HARRINGTON can be reached at 5712722330. 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.
/KIM THANH T TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights