DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,440. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are a variation of the patented claims. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-16 and 18, in that claims 1-16 and 18 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 of the instant application. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for anticipatory-type double patenting.
Instant Application 19/171,952
U.S. Patent 12,293,440
1. A method comprising: determining, by a computing system, tracking data based on video data for a game;
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing system, video data for a game; determining, by the computing system, tracking data based on the video data;
determining, by the computing system and using a prediction model, an artificial intelligence metric based on the tracking data;
determining, by the computing system and using a prediction model, an artificial intelligence metric based on the tracking data;
generating, by the computing system, a graphic responsive to determining the artificial intelligence metric, wherein the graphic comprises the artificial intelligence metric and one or more artificial intelligence contextual features associated with a plurality of metadata tags;
generating, by the computing system, a graphic responsive to determining the artificial intelligence metric, wherein the graphic comprises the artificial intelligence metric and one or more artificial intelligence contextual features associated with a plurality of metadata tags;
outputting, by the computing system, a recommended plurality of images responsive to generating the graphic, wherein each of the recommended plurality of images includes at least one metadata tag of the plurality of metadata tags;
recommending, by the computing system, an image including at least one metadata tag of the plurality of metadata tags responsive to generating the graphic; and
5. The method of claim 1, wherein recommending, by the computing system, the image including at least one metadata tag of the plurality of metadata tags, comprises: generating a list of a plurality of images, wherein each image of the plurality of images includes at least one metadata tag of the plurality of metadata tags;
receiving, by the computing system and from a user, a selection of an image of the recommended plurality of images; and
5. and selecting the recommended image from the plurality of images.
generating, by the computing system, a visual element by merging the selected image with the graphic.
generating, by the computing system, a visual element by merging the image with the graphic.
The above table illustrates a comparative mapping between the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and the limitations of claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent 12,293,440. The following is a complete listing of the correspondence between the claims of the instant application to U.S. Patent 12,293,440.
Claims of Instant Application
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
Claims of U.S. Patent 12,293,440
1, 5
5
2
3
4
6
7
8, 12
12
9
10
11
13
14
15, 18
18
16
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a respective indication for each of the recommended plurality of images, the respective indication indicating how a respective image of the recommended plurality of images is relevant to the artificial intelligence metric.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. (US 2023/0182026 A1) discloses artificial intelligence prediction models for determining statistics for players of a game as criteria for matching with a sponsor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights