DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/973698 filed on November 05, 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicants’ arguments have been considered with respective to the amended limitations.
Examiner replies that a new reference is produced to teach the amended limitations.
Double Patenting
4. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
5. Claims 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 46 and 47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 27 of copending U.S. Application No.16/747527. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications include processing features from images and texts.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
16/747527
18/937698
52
26
53
27
53
28
53
29
53
30
53
31
53
32
53
33
65
46
65
47
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 26-28, 37-41 46 and 47 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Piantino et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0073995 (herein as ‘Piantino’) and further in view of Winkler et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0216491 (herein as ‘Piantino’) and Chapman et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,463,386 (herein as ‘Chapman’).
As to claim 26 Piantino teaches a computer-based game event archiving system comprising: at least one non-transitory computer readable memory storing one or more computer readable instructions;
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory, wherein the at least one processor is operable to perform the following operations upon execution of the one or more computer readable instructions (Par. 0128 Piantino discloses a processor and memory);:
obtaining location data related to a computer-based game from at least one location sensor associated with a first client device (see [0020][0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system collects user data items including a time and location associated with it, wherein the user data includes a photograph (an image data) taken by the user and uploaded into the social networking system from a mobile device);
instantiating, in the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory, an event object related to the computer-based game upon satisfaction of contextual triggering criteria depending on at least the location data and a time-based criterion (see [0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system generates timeline units (item object) based on information extracted from the user data items, wherein the timeline units include information describing the selected narrative data and other information from other modules and the collected different types of data to improve the timeline units);
deriving one or more recognizable features from a digital representation of at least one memento token associated with the location data (see [0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system extracts information describing the user data items collected by the system);
Piantino does not explicitly disclose, but However, Winkler discloses storing the event object in at least one database, wherein the event object is indexed by at least one of the one or more recognizable features the time-based criterion and the location data (see Winkler [0037]-[0038] → Winkler teaches this limitation in that the system generates the element related to a data item upon input received from a user device, wherein the generated element is graphical objects chosen based on the received input),
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the location data of Winkler, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0002-0003 Winkler).
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Chapman teaches and enabling the first client device and least one other client device to retrieve the event object from the database during a common game session concurrently active in the first client device and the at least one other client device, based on the location data the time-based criterion and at least one recognizable feature similar to the at least one of the one or more recognizable features (Col. 20 lines 30-36 Chapman discloses different players provide different inputs to the same game).
Piantino and Chapman are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the location data of Chapman, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0002-0003 Chapman).
As to claim 27 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
In addition Piantino teaches wherein the at least one database comprises a timeline associated with the at least one memento token (Par. 0024 Piantino discloses an object as a timeline).
As to claim 28 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 27.
In addition Piantino teaches wherein the operations further comprise registering the event object with the timeline based on the at least one of the one or more recognizable features (Par. 0024 Piantino discloses a particular type of object is associated with a timeline).
As to claim 37 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
In addition Piantino teaches wherein the operation of deriving one or more recognizable features from the digital representation of the at least one memento token includes executing one or more feature processing algorithms on the digital representation (see [0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system extracts information describing the user data items collected by the system).
As to claim 38 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 37.
In addition Piantino teaches wherein the one or more feature processing algorithms include at least one image processing algorithm (Par. 0094 Piantino discloses extracting and processing features using image feature collection).
As to claim 39 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 38.
In addition Piantino teaches wherein the at least one image processing algorithm include at least one of the following: SIFT, FAST, ViPR, BRISK, and OCR (Par. 0094 Piantino discloses extracting and processing features using image feature collection).
As to claim 40 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 37.
In addition Piantino teaches wherein the one or more feature processing algorithms include at least one video processing algorithm (Par. 0094 Piantino discloses extracting and processing features using video feature collection).
As to claim 41 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 40.
In addition Piantino teaches wherein the at least one video processing algorithm includes at least one of the following: vSLAM or Video Content Analysis (Par. 0094 Piantino discloses extracting and processing features using video feature collection).
As to claim 46 Piantino teaches a method for archiving an event for a computer-based game, the method comprising:
obtaining location data related to a computer-based game from at least one location sensor associated with a first client device (see [0020][0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system collects user data items including a time and location associated with it, wherein the user data includes a photograph (an image data) taken by the user and uploaded into the social networking system from a mobile device);
instantiating, in the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory, an event object related to the computer-based game upon satisfaction of contextual triggering criteria depending on at least the location data and a time-based criterion (see [0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system generates timeline units (item object) based on information extracted from the user data items, wherein the timeline units include information describing the selected narrative data and other information from other modules and the collected different types of data to improve the timeline units);
deriving one or more recognizable features from a digital representation of at least one memento token associated with the location data (see [0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system extracts information describing the user data items collected by the system);
Piantino does not explicitly disclose, but However, Winkler discloses storing the event object in at least one database, wherein the event object is indexed by at least one of the one or more recognizable features and the location data (see Winkler [0037]-[0038] → Winkler teaches this limitation in that the system generates the element related to a data item upon input received from a user device, wherein the generated element is graphical objects chosen based on the received input);
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the location data of Winkler, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0002-0003 Winkler).
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Chapman teaches and enabling the first client device and least one other client device to retrieve the event object from the database during a common game session concurrently active in the first client device and the at least one other client device, based on the location data the time-based criterion and at least one recognizable feature similar to the at least one of the one or more recognizable features (Col. 20 lines 30-36 Chapman discloses different players provide different inputs to the same game).
Piantino and Chapman are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the location data of Chapman, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0002-0003 Chapman).
As to claim 47 Piantino teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising at least one non- transitory computer-readable memory configured for storing one or more computer- readable instructions, which upon execution by at least one processor coupled to the non-transitory computer readable memory, perform the following operations (Par. 0128 Piantino discloses a computer readable non-transitory media);
obtaining location data related to a computer-based game from at least one location sensor associated with a first client device (see [0020][0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system collects user data items including a time and location associated with it, wherein the user data includes a photograph (an image data) taken by the user and uploaded into the social networking system from a mobile device);
instantiating, in the at least one non-transitory computer readable memory, an event object related to the computer-based game upon satisfaction of contextual triggering criteria depending on at least the location data and a time-based criterion (see [0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system generates timeline units (item object) based on information extracted from the user data items, wherein the timeline units include information describing the selected narrative data and other information from other modules and the collected different types of data to improve the timeline units);
deriving one or more recognizable features from a digital representation of at least one memento token associated with the location data (see [0030]-[0049] → Piantino discloses this limitation in that the system extracts information describing the user data items collected by the system);
Piantino does not explicitly disclose, but However, Winkler discloses storing the event object in at least one database, wherein the event object is indexed by at least one of the one or more recognizable features the time-based criterion and the location data (see Winkler [0037]-[0038] → Winkler teaches this limitation in that the system generates the element related to a data item upon input received from a user device, wherein the generated element is graphical objects chosen based on the received input),
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the location data of Winkler, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0002-0003 Winkler).
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Chapman teaches and enabling the first client device and least one other client device to retrieve the event object from the database during a common game session concurrently active in the first client device and the at least one other client device, based on the location data the time-based criterion and at least one recognizable feature similar to the at least one of the one or more recognizable features (see Winkler [0037]-[0044][0063]-[0071] → Winkler teaches this limitation in that the system sends the generated element content of the data item to the second user device application upon request by the second user when the amount of activity within a certain period of time).
Piantino and Chapman are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the location data of Chapman, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0002-0003 Chapman).
9. Claims 29-36 and 42-45 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Piantino et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0073995 (herein as ‘Piantino’) and further in view of Winkler et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0216491 (herein as ‘Piantino’), Chapman et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,463,386 (herein as ‘Chapman’) and Danner et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,474,959 (herein as ‘Danner’).
As to claim 29 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the event object represents a virtual world event of the computer-based game (Col. 5 Lines 17-28 Danner teaches the virtual world event of busing assets or virtual items).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 30 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the event object represents a game event of the computer-based game (Col. 5 Lines 17-28 Danner teaches the virtual world event of busing assets or virtual items).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 31 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the at least one memento token comprises a game token for the computer-based game (Col. 5 Lines 17-28 Danner teaches the virtual world event of busing assets or virtual items. The virtual item is seen as the token).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 32 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the memento object comprises at least one of the following: a trading card, a doll, an action figure, a charm, a plate, a keepsake, or a piece of jewelry (Col. 3 Lines 40-50 Danner discloses the user can be a player character. The player character is seen as the action figure).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 33 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the computer-based game comprises an on-line gaming platform (Col. 3 Lines 50-60 Danner discloses the user be on a game within an online network).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 34 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the game comprises a multi-player on- line game (Col. 3 Lines 50-60 Danner discloses the users are within a multiplayer game).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 35 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the location data comprises geo-location data (Col. 22 Lines 50-60 Danner discloses the users have location information including the geographic location).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 36 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 35.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the geo-location data is derived from a GPS sensor (Col. 22 Lines 50-60 Danner discloses the users have location information including the geographic location using a GPS).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 42 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 26.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the operations further include obtaining event data, including location data related to the computer-based game, from the at least one client device (Col. 22 Lines 50-60 Danner discloses the users have location information including the geographic location using a GPS).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 43 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman and Danner teaches each and every limitation of claim 42.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the operations further include instantiating the event object from the event data (Col. 5 Lines 15-20 Danner discloses the events are associated with a game).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 44 Piantino in combination with Winkler and Chapman teaches each and every limitation of claim 42.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the event data comprises game data (Col. 5 Lines 15-20 Danner discloses the events are associated with a game).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
As to claim 45 Piantino in combination with Winkler, Chapman and Danner teaches each and every limitation of claim 42.
Piantino in combination with Winkler does not teach but Danner teaches wherein the event data comprises at least one of the following types of data: audio data, video data, image data, motion data, acceleration data, temperature data, location data, time data, metadata, identification data, preference data, sensor data, and security data (Col. 19 Lines 20-25 Danner discloses the events are associated with a audio and video).
Piantino and Winkler are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, object processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the different types of information of Piantino to include the virtual world of Danner, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Col. 1 Lines 35-50 Danner).
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/J.A.M/ December 27, 2025Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159