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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12086375. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application is a continuation of 17/741,227 and this application claims with more words but in a broader manner the invention concisely claimed in 17/741,227 (U.S. Patent No. 12086375).
The claims map to each other as follows:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12086375
Claim 1
A layer-partitioned virtual world system, comprising:
a server computing device comprising a processor and a memory storing a base layer including a persistent virtual world system comprising a plurality of virtual objects, the base layer supporting one or more virtual world layers providing one or more functionalities to the persistent virtual world system through one or more applications;
the server computing device configured for communication via a network with one or more software engines for providing one or more services to the one or more applications, wherein the one or more services provided by the one or more software engines comprise at least one of a simulation service or a rendering service used in creation and run-time execution of the one or more applications; and
one or more client devices receiving and displaying one or more composited virtual frames corresponding to the base layer and the one or more functionalities of one or more of the plurality of virtual world layers, wherein the at least one server computing device is configured to:
receive, from the one or more client devices, a virtual world layer activation permission rule; and
retrieve the one or more services associated with the one or more functionalities provided by the one or more software engines based on the virtual world layer activation permission rule.
Claim 1
A layer-partitioned virtual world system, comprising:
at least one server computing device comprising at least one processor and memory storing a base layer including a persistent virtual world system comprising a plurality of virtual objects, the base layer supporting one or more virtual world layers providing one or more functionalities to the persistent virtual world system through one or more applications;
one or more third-party software engines hosted on one or more third-party server computing devices communicatively coupled to the at least one server computing device via a network and providing one or more services to the one or more applications; and
Claim 10, the one or more services provided by the one or more third-party software engines comprise at least one of a simulation service or a rendering service used in creation and run-time execution of the one or more applications
one or more client devices receiving and displaying one or more composited virtual frames corresponding to the base layer and the one or more functionalities of one or more of the plurality of virtual world layers,
wherein the at least one server computing device is configured to:
receive, from the one or more client devices, a virtual world layer activation permission rule; and
retrieve the one or more services associated with the one or more functionalities provided by the one or more third-party software engines hosted on the one or more third-party server computing devices based on the virtual world layer activation permission rule.
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of virtual objects includes at least one of virtual objects that are virtual replicas of real world objects, or virtual objects that do not represent real world objects.
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of virtual objects includes at least one of virtual objects that are virtual replicas of real world objects, or virtual objects that do not represent real world objects.
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 11
Claim 10
Claim 12
Claim 11
Claim 13
Claim 12
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 15
Claim 14
Claim 16
Claim 15
Claim 18
Claim 16
Claim 19
Claim 17
Claim 20
Claim 18
Claim 21
Claim 19
Claim 22
Claim 20
Claim 23
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting against U.S. Patent No. 12086375, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The claims of the instant application are under a double patenting rejection against U.S. Patent No. 12086375. The allowable subject matter in the instant application is similar to the allowed subject matter in the parent application which, corresponds to U.S. Patent No. 12086375.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JITESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3313. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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 A. 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.
/JITESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612