DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,456. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to providing previews of virtual expo booths, without having to join the to the virtual expo booth.
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, 5, 8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May (US 2020/0412781 A1) in view of Lucarelli (US 2003/0156135 A1).
With regards to Claim 1, May teaches a method comprising: establishing a virtual expo including a plurality of virtual expo booths (i.e., According to one embodiment, a server generates a dedicated virtual environment for a particular attendee of various attendees of a network security training session, which is part of a virtual conference demonstrating network security products… which represents a simulated conference environment with each network security product from one or more vendors being demonstrated as a virtual booth represented in the conference environment. The game client causes the particular attendee to navigate in the 3D user interface to a first virtual booth selected from various virtual booths to access a first learning objective relating to a first network security product from a first vendor corresponding to the first booth, Paragraph 10) ; joining a first client device to the virtual expo (i.e., FIG. 3A depicts a screen shot 300 containing a login screen for an attendee of a virtual conference in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The kiosk login screen prompts the attendee to provide unique identifier in the form of login credentials (e.g., username/email address and password). In an exemplary embodiment, each attendee can be provided with a V-token or a virtual ticket so that the attendees can use V-tokens or virtual tickets to form a team to participate during training sessions…, Paragraph 91; In the conference area, multiple booths can represent demonstrations of network security products from various vendors…, Paragraph 93).
However, May does not explicitly disclose receiving a request, from the first client device, to preview content available within a first vir0tual expo booth of the plurality of virtual expo booths; and responsive to the request, transmitting a preview of first content available within the first virtual expo booth to the first client device. Lucarelli does teach receiving a request, from the first client device, to preview content available within a first virtual expo booth of the plurality of virtual expo booths; and responsive to the request, transmitting a preview of first content available within the first virtual expo booth to the first client device (i.e., The avatar 50 is shown standing in the exhibit booth 46 moving from a 4-screen flat panel video display 54 to a single flat panel display 56. Both displays 54, 56 are showing a pre-recorded motion video In addition to motion video, exhibit booths can include supplemental information in pre-recorded animation sequences, interactive animation models, still-frame pictures, graphic images, slide presentations, lighting and other special effects, audio tones, pre-recorded audio narrations, pre-recorded audio messages, documents, controls (e.g., buttons or pop-up menus), and hyperlinks. Such features can also be initiated automatically based on the user's proximity to an item within the exhibit booth or by selection of embedded controls., Paragraph 50). in order to provide a system for users to participate in a 3-D virtual reality environment of a tradeshow (Paragraph 8). Therefore, based on May in view of Lucarelli, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Lucarelli with the system of May in order to provide a system for users to participate in a 3-D virtual reality environment of a tradeshow.
With regards to Claim 5, May teaches wherein transmitting the preview of the first content comprises transmitting one or more multimedia streams associated with the first virtual expo booth, and not transmitting one or more client multimedia streams from the first client device to one or more members of the virtual expo booth. (i.e., Each virtual booth is associated with a learning objective (e.g. video demonstration of the network security product) such that the attendee can learn about the network security product by completing (e.g. watching video) the learning objective, Paragraph 31).
The limitations of Claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of Claim 12 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 5 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of Claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May (US 2020/0412781 A1) in view of Lucarelli (US 2003/0156135 A1) in view of Singh (US 2019/0005717 A1).
With regards to Claim 2, May and Lucarelli teach the above disclosed subject matter. However, May and Lucarelli do not explicitly disclose further comprising, responsive to the request, not joining the first client device to the first virtual expo booth. Singh does teach further comprising, responsive to the request, not joining the first client device to the first virtual expo booth (i.e., providing a preview of the second VR immersive space on a surface of the portal located in the first VR immersive space, Paragraph 4; Paragraphs 10-11; Figure 6, Items 1202/1206; preview of second VR immersive space is provided in first VR immersive space before the user opts to enter second VR immersive space, ) in order to link a first virtual reality immersive space with a second VR immersive space (Paragraph 4). Therefore, based on May in view of Lucarelli and further view of Singh, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Singh with the system of May and Lucarelli in order to link a first virtual reality immersive space with a second VR immersive space.
With regards to Claim 3, May and Lucarelli teach the above disclosed subject matter. However, May and Lucarelli do not explicitly disclose further comprising, after transmitting the preview of the first content, receiving a request to join the first virtual expo booth. Singh does teach further comprising, after transmitting the preview of the first content, receiving a request to join the first virtual expo booth (i.e., selection by the user comprises having the user virtually walk through the portal, Paragraph 12) in order to link a first virtual reality immersive space with a second VR immersive space (Paragraph 4). Therefore, based on May in view of Lucarelli and further view of Singh, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Singh with the system of May and Lucarelli in order to link a first virtual reality immersive space with a second VR immersive space.
With regards to Claim 7, May teaches the above disclosed subject matter. However, May does not explicitly disclose wherein the request to preview the content comprises a request to preview the content of a first virtual presentation of a plurality of virtual presentations available within the virtual expo booth. Lucarelli does teach wherein the request to preview the content comprises a request to preview the content of a first virtual presentation of a plurality of virtual presentations available within the virtual expo booth (i.e., The avatar 50 is shown standing in the exhibit booth 46 moving from a 4-screen flat panel video display 54 to a single flat panel display 56. Both displays 54, 56 are showing a pre-recorded motion video In addition to motion video, exhibit booths can include supplemental information in pre-recorded animation sequences, interactive animation models, still-frame pictures, graphic images, slide presentations, lighting and other special effects, audio tones, pre-recorded audio narrations, pre-recorded audio messages, documents, controls (e.g., buttons or pop-up menus), and hyperlinks. Such features can also be initiated automatically based on the user's proximity to an item within the exhibit booth or by selection of embedded controls., Paragraph 50) in order to provide a system for users to participate in a 3-D virtual reality environment of a tradeshow (Paragraph 8). Therefore, based on May in view of Lucarelli, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Lucarelli with the system of May in order to provide a system for users to participate in a 3-D virtual reality environment of a tradeshow.
May and Lucarelli do not explicitly disclose joining the first client device to the virtual expo booth and not joining the first client device to the first virtual presentation. Singh does teach joining the first client device to the virtual expo booth (i.e., selection by the user comprises having the user virtually walk through the portal, Paragraph 12) and not joining the first client device to the first virtual presentation (i.e., providing a preview of the second VR immersive space on a surface of the portal located in the first VR immersive space, Paragraph 4; Paragraphs 10-11; Figure 6, Items 1202/1206; preview of second VR immersive space is provided in first VR immersive space before the user opts to enter second VR immersive space) in order to link a first virtual reality immersive space with a second VR immersive space (Paragraph 4). Therefore, based on May in view of Lucarelli and further view of Singh, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Singh with the system of May and Lucarelli in order to link a first virtual reality immersive space with a second VR immersive space.
The limitations of Claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 2 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of Claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of Claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 7 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of Claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 2 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of Claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
The limitations of Claim 20 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 7 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURAJ M JOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-6 ET.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/SURAJ M JOSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 June 6, 2926
Prosecution Insights