DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 15, as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea (not that a virtual landscape is a pictorial representation; and thus, the term “pictorial” is used below in order to provide proper context):
[present] a first [pictorial] landscape comprising a first component representing a landscape element, wherein the first virtual landscape comprises a first aspect affecting risk to a first property represented in the first [pictorial] landscape;
[present], based at least in part on a first user interaction received from a first user with the first [pictorial] landscape, user performance data based at least in part on a number of aspects identified by the first user in the first [pictorial] landscape during a period of time; and
[present], based at least in part on the user performance data and a second user interaction received from a second user with the first [pictorial] landscape, a second [pictorial] landscape comprising a second component that differs from the first component, wherein the second [pictorial] landscape comprises a second aspect affecting risk to a second property represented in the second [pictorial] landscape.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior; such as teaching, wherein the a user is presented with an interactive exercise or content, the interactive exercise/content comprises a first landscape comprising at least one landscape component, wherein first virtual landscape comprises a first aspect affecting risk to a first property represented in the first virtual landscape; and accordingly, the user’s performance is determined based on a number of aspects that the user is identifying regarding the first landscape during a period of time; and furthermore, based on the user performance above, including an input from a second user, the user is presented with a second landscape that comprises a second component that differs from the first component, wherein the second landscape comprises a second aspect affecting risk to a second property represented in the second landscape, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process: presenting a first landscape that comprises a first aspect affecting risk to a first property represented in the virtual landscape; generating user performance data based at least in part on the first user interaction with the first landscape; generating a second landscape based at least in part on the user performance data and second user interaction received from a second user with first landscape, etc., the current claims also correspond to the group mental processes, i.e., a concept that can be performed in the human mind (and/or using a pen and paper)—such as, an observation, an evaluation, and/or a judgement process.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claims\) recite additional element(s), wherein a computer-based system that comprises basic computer components (e.g., a processor, a memory, etc.) is utilized as a tool to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: generating/presenting a first content martial to a user (e.g., “generating a first virtual landscape comprising a first component representing a landscape element . . . a first aspect affecting risk to a first property represented in the first virtual landscape”); generating a result based on one or more responses received from the user (e.g., “generating, based at least in part on a first user interaction received from a first user . . . user performance data based at least in part on a number of aspects identified by the first user in the first virtual landscape during a period of time”); generating a second content material to the user based on the result above and/or further input from a second user (e.g., “generating, based at least in part on the user performance data and a second user interaction received from a second user within the first virtual landscape . . . a second component that differs from the first component, wherein the second virtual landscape comprises a second aspect affecting risk to a second property represented in the second virtual landscape”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole (e.g., see the discussion under Prong Two above regarding such consideration of the claim as a whole), none of the claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is worth nothing, per the original disclosure, that the claimed system/method is relying on the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the claimed abstract idea (e.g., [0029] to [0036]).
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the presentation of interactive content materials to one or more users, including the process of generating a virtual reality environment that allows one or more users to interact with one or more virtual scenarios as part of a training and/or evaluation activity, etc., is already directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2014/0162224; US 2011/0029897, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 7 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claims 7 and 20 recites, “wherein the landscape element comprises one or more of a natural element, a man-made structure, or an infrastructure component” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear how a single landscape element is considered to comprise multiple elements. Note that the term “one or more” implies multiple. Thus, each of claims 7 and 20 is ambiguous at least for the reason above.
Applicant is further advised to evaluate each of the current claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies are discovered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Wallace 2014/0162224 in view of Bridgeman 2019/0304188.
Regarding each of claims 1, 8 and 15, Wallace teaches the following claimed limitations: a system/method (a non-transitory computer-readable medium) for determining user performance via interaction with a virtual environment, the system comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions ([0004];[0007]: e.g., a computer-based virtual reality system that provides a user with skill oriented training, wherein the user’s performance is also evaluated as the user is interacting with—or performing—one or more virtual tasks within an immersive virtual environment. Note that the computer-based system above already comprises basic computer units, including: one or more processing units, memory units, etc.) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: generating a first virtual landscape comprising a first component representing a landscape element, wherein the first virtual landscape comprises a first aspect affecting risk to a first property represented in the first virtual landscape (see FIG 1A depicting one or more virtual properties—such as, one or more houses, not labeled; also see [0047]; [0048]: e.g., the system generates a virtual environment or worksite that depicts one or more houses, vegetation, etc., and the user is required to perform one or more virtual activities—such as, building a shed. Thus, the virtual environment above corresponds to the virtual landscape, which comprises one or more landscape components—such as, vegetation within the virtual landscape, construction materials within the virtual landscape, etc. Although the virtual house is not labeled, it is understood that the user is building the shed in the area where the house is positioned. Accordingly, the house corresponds to the first property. Similarly, the shed that the user builds comprises one or more aspects—such as the type, number and/or size of materials being used, etc., and these represent one or more aspects affecting risk to the first property); generating, based at least in part on a first user interaction received from a first user within the first virtual landscape, user performance data based at least in part on a number of aspects identified by the first user in the first virtual landscape during a period of time ([0048] to [0050]: e.g., as part of the user’s activity or interaction, the user is required to identify one or more aspects—such as, determining the type and/or amount of one or more materials needed; and the performance of the user is evaluated based on the actions that the user takes above. Accordingly, the system generates, based on the a first user interaction within the first virtual landscape, user performance data based on a number of aspects the user identifies during a period of time); and generating, based at least in part on the user performance data, a second virtual landscape comprising a second component that differs from the first component, wherein the second virtual landscape comprises a second aspect affecting risk to a second property represented in the second virtual landscape (see FIG 4A; [0041] lines 1-15; [0051]: e.g., the system already incorporates a plurality of different virtual worksites, see FIG 4A; and each virtual worksite depicts one or more houses, vegetations, etc. Accordingly, the different virtual worksites correspond to different virtual landscapes—i.e., a second landscape, a third landscape, etc. Moreover, the different worksite is associated with a work with different level of complexity—such as, a ranch house worksite, a multi-level house work site, etc. Accordingly, when the user completes his/her workorder at the first worksite—such as the shed worksite, the user advances to the next worksite—such as the ranch house worksite; and thereby, the user performs relevant activities, including: measuring and calculating cuts to form a roof rafter; installing a door in the ranch house, etc. Accordingly, the system generates, based at least in part on the user performance data—such as completion of the first workorder relating to the shed worksite, a second virtual landscape—such as, the ranch house work site, which comprises a second component that differs from the first component, wherein the second virtual landscape comprises a second aspect affecting risk to a second property represented in the second virtual landscape).
Wallace does not expressly describe that the generation of the second virtual landscape above is further based on a second user interaction received from a second user within the first virtual landscape.
However, Bridgeman teaches a multi-user virtual reality training system that allows two or more users—such as a trainee and a trainer—to interact in a virtual reality environment ([0034]); wherein each of the trainer and trainee is represented using their corresponding avatar in the virtual environment; and furthermore, besides monitoring the progress of the trainee regarding a virtual task, the trainer also controls the flow of the training procedure ([0036]).
It is further worth noting that Wallace already teaches that a second user; namely, a teacher—evaluates the work that the user is performing ([0055]; [0057]).
Thus, given the teaching above, 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 invention of Wallace in view of Bridgeman; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that the system provides the teacher with an option to represent himself (or herself), using a corresponding expert avatar, as one of the participants in the one or more of the virtual environments that the system is generating; and, besides monitoring the user’s progress, the teacher is also provided with an option to: (i) permit the user to advance—or deny the user from advancing—to the next complex worksite, (ii) make one or more adjustments regarding the materials being used and/or the procedures being performed in the virtual environment, etc., so that the teacher makes sure that the user acquires the skills required per each complexity level, before the user proceeds to the next task; and this helps the user to easily build a more comprehensive skill.
Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per each of claims 1, 8 and 15. Wallace further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, the number of aspects identified by the first user comprises one of a first number of aspects correctly identified by the first user as affecting risk or a second number of aspects falsely identified by the first user as affecting risk ([0048] to [0050]: e.g., when building the shed, the user identifies the type and/or number of one or more materials needed; and it is understood that the user’s performance is evaluated based on whether the user correctly or incorrectly identified the type and/or number of one or more of the materials. Accordingly, the above already indicates that the number of aspects, which the first user identifies, comprises one of: a first/second number of aspects correctly/falsely identified by the first user as affecting risk);
Regarding claim 3, generating, in one or more of the first virtual landscape or the second virtual landscape, a visual overlay based at least in part on the user performance data ([0049]: also see the transition from: FIG 9A to FIG 9B, FIG 10A to FIG 10B, etc. e.g., as the user is performing one or more tasks—such as: framing a portion of the floor of the shed; raising a wall in position, etc., the system applies one or more visual overlays, including visual aids in the form of phantom or shaded representations, which are applied on one or more parts of the virtual environment. The above indicates the process of generating—in one or more of the first virtual landscape or the second virtual landscape—a visual overlay based at least in part on the user performance data);
Regarding claim 4, generating the second virtual landscape comprises determining the second component based on at least one of the user performance data, the first user interaction, a weighting factor associated with the second component, or the second user interaction ([0041] lines 1-15; [0051]: e.g., as already discussed above per claim 1, the user advances to the second landscape—such as, a ranch house worksite, after the user completes a workorder in the shed worksite; and the ranch house worksite already comprises at least one corresponding—i.e., second—component; such as, construction material relevant to installing door in the ranch house worksite. Thus, since the user is advanced to the ranch house worksite, which comprises the second component, after the user has completed his/her workorder that relates to the shed worksite, the process of generating the second virtual landscape already comprises determining the second component based on at least one of the user performance data);
Regarding claim 5, generating the second virtual landscape is further based at least in part on past performance data for the first user associated with one or more
past virtual landscapes ([0041] lines 1-15; [0051]: e.g., as already discussed above per claim 1, the user advances to the second landscape—such as, a ranch house worksite, after the user completes a workorder in the shed worksite. This essentially means that the second virtual landscape, which is the ranch house worksite, is generated based on the user’s past performance associated with at least one past virtual landscape—i.e., the completion of the first workorder at the shed worksite. Note that the term “past” is a generic term that does not specify a particular or definite time. Thus, “past” performance data implies “earlier” or “previous”’ performance data).
Regarding each of claims 6 and 18, Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 15 respectively.
Wallace does not expressly teach that the first user interaction comprises an indication of the first component being associated with one or more of a hazardous material, a risk of water damage, or a fire risk.
However, Wallace already teaches that various types of skills are being evaluated including: plumbing—such as, installing drains and waste lines; electrical installations; roofing that includes installing waterproof membranes, etc. ([0038]); and furthermore, the interaction process already involves a scenario that requires the user to answer one or more questions ([0048]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Wallace; for example, by incorporating one or more additional questions that relate to the safety of one or more of the construction materials; such as, questions related to: non-combustible materials (if any) that the user is using; waterproof materials that the user is using to prevent damage due to moisture or flooding, etc., so that the system evaluates the user’s overall skill in selecting materials that are more appropriate to handle harsh conditions.
Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per each of claims 1, 8 and 15. Wallace further teaches:
Regarding each of claims 7 and 20, the landscape element comprises one or more of a natural element, a man-made structure, or an infrastructure component (see FIG 1A: e.g., at least one of the components, which represents the element in the virtual landscape, is vegetation. Thus, the above indicates that the landscape element comprises a natural element);
Regarding claim 9, the first user interaction comprises an indication that the first component is associated with a third aspect affecting insurability or with a fourth aspect unrelated to insurability ([0048]: e.g., as part of the user’s interaction in the virtual environment, the user provides one or more responses to questions—such as, amount of construction material needed, etc. This indicates—at least implicitly—that the first user interaction comprises an indication that the first component, which is the construction material, is associated with a fourth aspect—such as, amount of material needed, which is unrelated to insurability).
Regarding claim 10, Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 8.
The limitation, “generating the second virtual landscape comprises generating, in the second virtual landscape, at least one of a first avatar representing the first user or a second avatar representing the second user”, is already addressed per the modification discussed with respect to claim 8 since each of the first user (e.g., the user/student) and the second user (e.g., the teacher) is represented with a corresponding avatar (note that the same motivation applies to claim 10 since it depends on claim 8).
Regarding claim 12, Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 8.
Wallace further teaches, generating, in one or more of the first virtual landscape or the second virtual landscape, a visual overlay based at least in part on the first user interaction ([0049]: also see the transition from: FIG 9A to FIG 9B, FIG 10A to FIG 10B, etc. e.g., as the user is performing one or more tasks—such as: framing a portion of the floor of the shed; raising a wall in position, etc., the system applies one or more visual overlays, including visual aids in the form of phantom or shaded representations, which are applied on one or more parts of the virtual environment).
Regarding claim 13, Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 8.
The limitation, “the second user interaction comprises a modification of the first component, and generating the second virtual landscape comprises determining the second component based at least in part on the modification of the first component”, is already addressed per the modification discussed with respect to claim 8. In particular, besides monitoring the performance of the user, the teacher (i.e., the second user) makes one or more adjustments regarding the materials being used and/or the procedures being performed in the virtual environment, etc. (note that the same motivation discussed per claim 8 applies to claim 13 since claim 13 depends on claim 8).
Regarding claim 14, Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 8.
Wallace further teaches, generating the second virtual landscape is further based at least in part on a user performance trend determined based at least in part on the user performance data and past performance data for the first user associated with one or more past virtual landscapes ([0041] lines 1-15; [0051]: e.g., as already discussed above per claim 8, the user advances to the second landscape—such as, a ranch house worksite, after the user completes the current workorder in the shed worksite. Thus, the ranch house worksite, is generated based on the user’s past performance associated with at least one past virtual landscape—i.e., the completion of the first workorder at the shed worksite. Note that the phrase, “based at least in part on a user performance trend determined based at least in part on the user performance data”, is construed as the ongoing performance data that relates to the first worksite that the system is recording, see FIG 9A/9B, label “Coverage Score”. Similarly, given the fact the term “past” is a generic term that does not specify a particular or definite time, the performance data that relates to the shed worksite is considered to be “past” performance data when the ranch house worksite—i.e., the second landscape—is generated).
Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 15. Wallace further teaches:
Regarding claim 16, the first virtual landscape is representative of a geographical area comprising a unitary area of land (see FIG 1A: e.g., the virtual landscape already represents a geographical area comprising a unitary area of land);
Regarding claim 17, the number of aspects identified by the first user comprises one of a first number of aspects correctly identified by the first user as affecting risk or a second number of aspects falsely identified by the first user as affecting risk ([0048] to [0050]: e.g., when building the shed, the user identifies the type and/or number of one or more materials needed; and it is understood that the user’s performance is evaluated based on whether the user correctly or incorrectly identified the type and/or number of one or more of the materials. Accordingly, the above already indicates that the number of aspects, which the first user identifies, comprises one of: a first/second number of aspects correctly/falsely identified by the first user as affecting risk).
Regarding claim 20, Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per 15.
Although Wallace does not expressly describe that “the first user interaction comprises an indication of a proximity of the first component to the first property affecting risk to the first property”, Wallace already teaches that the user, as part of performing one or more tasks, interacts with a scenario that requires the user to answer one or more questions related to the shed being built—such as, the amount of material needed, and/or calculating the square feet of the specified board, etc.([0048] to [0050]).
In this regard, a person skilled in the art readily recognizes that a shed is typically built in the surrounding area of a house or a building.
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Wallace; for example, by incorporating one or more additional questions that relate to the distance of the construction material (e.g., the material for building the wall or roof of the shed) with respect to the nearby house, etc., so that the user considers establishing a sufficient open space between the wall/roof of the shed and the house when building the shed; so that the user learns how to avoid a potential risk to the house due it unexpected event, such as the collapse of the shed due to severe weather conditions, etc.
● Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Wallace 2014/0162224 in view of Bridgeman 2019/0304188 and in view of Feldman 2017/0032466.
Regarding claim 11, Wallace in view of Bridgeman teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 8.
Wallace does not expertly teach, the first user interaction comprises an indication that a relative arrangement, within the first virtual landscape, of the first component and a third component of the first virtual landscape are associated with
a third aspect affecting insurability.
However, Feldman teaches a system that determines supplemental information related to a virtual home, which is generated via a computer interface ([0018]; [0025]); and furthermore, the system allows the user to rearrange one or more components within the virtual home; such as: adding one or more components representing real world elements, removing one or more components representing real world elements, etc. (see [0036]: e.g., such process of adding and/or removing elements within the virtual elements already signifies—at least implicitly—an interaction that indicates a relative arrangement of one or more components [i.e., a first component, a second component, a third component, etc.] of the first virtual landscape are associated with one or more aspects [i.e., a first aspect, a second aspect, a third aspect, etc.] affecting insurability).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Wallace in view of Feldman; for example, by incorporating a further scenario that requires the user to consider one or more additional factors—such as, insurance cost, that are normally adjusted based on one or more arrangements of one or more components related to the shed and/or the nearby house, including evaluating the user’s performance based on whether he/she is choosing the best arrangement that lowers the insurance cost, etc., so that the user would have a more comprehensive knowledge after completing the training.
Double Patenting
6. 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).
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-17 and 19 of US 12,249,251 (hereinafter Little).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features are directed to obvious modification of the corresponding claims recites per Little.
For example, claim 1 of the current application recites features that are similar to the features of claim 1 of Little, except that current claim 1 does not positively specify that: (i) that the first component is “one of a natural element or a man-made element”; and (ii) the number of aspects being identified is “a number of correctly identified aspects” or “a number of falsely identified aspects”.
However, given the fac that current claim 1 broadly recites (i) the presence of a landscape component that represents a landscape element, and (ii) a number of aspects that the user identifies in the first virtual landscape during a period of time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claim 1, to modify current claim 1; for example, by incorporating one or more additional features—such as, (i) specifying at least one element that is commonly found in various landscapes, and also (ii) specifying the data performance data in terms of the correct and/or incorrect number of aspects that the user is identifying, etc., so that claimed system would provide the user with a more precise training scenarios, etc.
Although exemplary analysis presented above with respect to claim 1, it is worth noting that similar type of analysis applies to the rest of the corresponding claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights