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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 07/24/2025.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 are pending.
Note: the claim sets use “for” language throughout the claim limitations which is intended use and does not require an explicit rejection of the intended use. The examiner recommends explicitly claiming the intent of the invention without using “for” language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 it is unclear if the interpreter plugin loading and executing the blueprints is the one of interpreter plugins that corresponds to the target application. For purposes of rejection the examiner is interpreting them to be the same and recommends that the claim clarify the intent of the invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 112(b) for their dependence on rejection claim 1.
Claim sets 8-12 and 15-19 are similarly rejected to claim set 1-5 for having similar limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brebner et al. (US 2023/0152598 A1) hereinafter Brebner in view of Dunn et al. (US 2020/0387289 A1) hereinafter Dunn.
Regarding claim 1, Brebner discloses
A system for creating and executing interoperable digital assets, comprising:
an asset registry for storing and managing the blueprints (Brebner [0164] The visual editor 108 of the application system 100 may be designed to facilitate rapid creation of content, optionally allowing users to draw from an extensive set of templates and blueprints 180 (which may be stored in the data store 172)); and
a plurality of target application-specific interpreter plugins for executing the blueprints within a target application (Brebner [0487] teaches “In embodiments, the function layer 244 includes a plugin module 256 that executes plugins (e.g., JavaScript plugins). As discussed, an administrator may provide plugins to customize the server kit 200 for a client application. A plugin may perform a function that is not included in the “out of the box” server kit 200 but that is needed to enable, support, and/or improve operation of a corresponding client application. In this way, the server kit 200 is extensible, in that new functionality can be easily added to the server kit.”), wherein one of the target application-specific interpreter plugins corresponds to the target application and is configured to translate the data structure into target application engine-specific instructions for the target application at runtime (Brebner [0189] teaches translating data structures into a format of a different computer environment while editing and loading user projects at runtime. Brebner [0611] further teaches “In embodiments, a code execution engine may take a declarative language statement for a digital content asset and convert it into a set of instructions that ensure a consistent user experience across different operating systems. This may take the form of graphic primitives, and the like to generate a consistent visual element for each operating system.”) and wherein the interpreter plugin is configured to dynamically load and execute at least one of the blueprints using the target application engine- specific instructions at runtime within the target application (Brebner [0189] teaches loading the projects containing the translated data structures at runtime. Brebner [0619] further teaches “In embodiments, the system for creating, sharing and managing digital content that cooperatively uses a declarative language for generating a digital content asset via a visual editing environment and executed the digital content asset with a code execution engine may further include functions that facilitate orchestrating components, events, response to triggers and the like for a digital content asset.”).
Brebner lacks explicitly
a blueprint editor for creating engine-agnostic blueprints, the blueprints including a non-executable data structure defining asset composition and behavior
Dunn teaches
a blueprint editor for creating engine-agnostic blueprints (Dunn [0214] teaches “FIGS. 8A-8DF illustrate example user interfaces for generating CGR files in accordance with some embodiments.”), the blueprints including a non-executable data structure defining asset composition and behavior (Dunn [0641] teaches “In various embodiments, the CGR file includes an XML (Extensible Markup Language) or JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) file that describes the regarding the anchor, the one or more CGR objects, and the behavior. In various embodiments, the CGR file includes various data structures (e.g., display meshes, physics meshes, textures, images, audio, etc.) associated with the anchor, the one or more CGR objects, and/or the behavior.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brebner to incorporate the teachings of Dunn to “a blueprint editor for creating engine-agnostic blueprints, the blueprints including a non-executable data structure defining asset composition and behavior” in order to Such methods and interfaces reduce the cognitive burden on a user and produce a more efficient human-machine interface (Dunn [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brebner et al. (US 2023/0152598 A1) hereinafter Brebner in view of Dunn et al. (US 2020/0387289 A1) hereinafter Dunn and further in view of Saleh et al. (US 2017/0060541 A1) hereinafter Saleh.
Regarding claim 2, Brebner in view of Dunn combination teach The system of claim 1,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the blueprint editor comprises a visual scripting interface for creating the engine-agnostic blueprints using pre-defined functional nodes.
Saleh teaches
wherein the blueprint editor comprises a visual scripting interface for creating the engine-agnostic blueprints using pre-defined functional nodes (Saleh [0092] and [0138] teach visual script canvas 202 illustrated in Fig. 2 which may include predefined blocks/nodes as illustrated in Fig. 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Saleh to “wherein the blueprint editor comprises a visual scripting interface for creating the engine-agnostic blueprints using pre-defined functional nodes” in order to ease script development and decrease development time for developers through using visual scripting interface.
Regarding claim 3, The system of claim 2,
Saleh further teaches
wherein the pre-defined functional nodes include nodes for spawning 3D models, applying materials, and defining asset behaviors (Saleh [0092] and [0138] teaches the predefined blocks as illustrated in Fig. 5. The examiner would like to point out that the “for” language is intended use, thus no rejection has been provided).
Regarding claim 9, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brebner et al. (US 2023/0152598 A1) hereinafter Brebner in view of Dunn et al. (US 2020/0387289 A1) hereinafter Dunn and further in view of Xie et al. (US 8,635,204 B1) hereinafter Xie.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches The system of claim 1,
the combination lacks explicitly
wherein the asset registry comprises a database for storing and versioning the blueprints.
Xie teaches
wherein the asset registry comprises a database for storing and versioning the blueprints (Xie [col. 35, lines 5-18] teaches storing and updating new versions of data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Xie to “wherein the asset registry comprises a database for storing and versioning the blueprints” in order efficiently “keep current statistics of programming norms, and track evolution of software development for particular software applications and software applications in general” (Xie [col. 35, lines 15-18]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches The system of claim 4,
the combination lacks
wherein the asset registry further comprises an API for querying and retrieving blueprints.
Xie further teaches
wherein the asset registry further comprises an API for querying and retrieving blueprints (Xie [col 9, lines 57-62] teaches “the JDBC API is used to establish a connection with a database or access any tabular data source, send SQL statements, and process the results. The system 100 allows queries to be performed by the two components in order to fill out the database with the extracted software (e.g., Java) concepts.” The examiner would like to point out the “for” language which is intended use and does not require an explicit rejection of the use case).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Xie to “wherein the asset registry further comprises an API for querying and retrieving blueprints” in order to ease and speed the access of data from the database with simple calls of an API.
Regarding claim 11, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193