DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on June 13, 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on June 13, 2025. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,455. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same invention.
Claim 1 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,361,455, specifically A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
performing a first neural rendering of a metaverse object in a first immersive environment for a first user engaged in the first immersive environment using a first target user device, and capturing first parameters of the first neural rendering and first information regarding a first network latency experienced by the first target user device during the first neural rendering;
after the performing and the capturing, obtaining contextual information associated with a second user that is engaged in a second immersive environment using a second target user device and obtaining second information regarding a second network latency experienced by the second target user device, wherein the contextual information comprises user profile data, data regarding a location of the second user, data regarding one or more inputs provided by the second user, or a combination thereof;
determining whether a difference between the first network latency and the second network latency is less than a threshold; and
performing a second neural rendering of the metaverse object in the second immersive environment for the second user using the first parameters of the first neural rendering of the metaverse object for the first user based on a determination that the difference between the first network latency and the second network latency is less than the threshold, and otherwise performing a third neural rendering of the metaverse object for the second user based on parameters relating to one or more metaverse object attributes for the second user that are defined according to the contextual information associated with the second user, wherein the third neural rendering is performed along with an embedding of a warning object, included in a personalized recommendation of the metaverse object for the second user, on a particular surface of the second immersive environment that is within a threshold distance from the metaverse object if the second network latency is determined to be greater than a particular threshold, thereby providing an alert of a potential device or connectivity issue during the third neural rendering.
The single difference in language between the two claims are the replacement of first and second network latency with first and second biometric data. Par. 0049 discloses “usage information associated with the metaverse object or other metaverse objects (e.g., data regarding metaverse object engagement metrics, passive features such as latency experienced or user biometrics, etc.)” where it is obvious to one of skill that user information includes passive features of latency experience (‘455 patent) and biometrics (‘268 application) and they are the same. Examiner notes he did not give a statutory double patenting rejection despite the exact language and marginal difference in limitation both being passive features.
Claim 2 is drawn to claim 2 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 3 is drawn to claim 3 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 4 is drawn to claim 4 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 5 is drawn to claim 5 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 6 is drawn to claim 6 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 7 is drawn to claim 7 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 8 is drawn to claim 8 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 9 is drawn to claim 9 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 10 is drawn to claim 10 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 11 is drawn to claim 11 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 12 is drawn to claim 12 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 13 is drawn to claim 13 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 14 is drawn to claim 14 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 15 is drawn to claim 15 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 16 is drawn to claim 16 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 17 is drawn to claim 17 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 18 is drawn to claim 18 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 19 is drawn to claim 19 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Claim 20 is drawn to claim 20 of U.S. Patent of U.S. Patent 12,361,455.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights