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 .
This action is in response to communications filed on 02/26/2026.
Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/03/2024 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/972755, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application; for example, it is noted that the provisional application only includes a subset of the current drawings with minimal associated description, which does not contain numerous limitations recited in the claims (e.g. mechanic objects, mission screen, etc.). Accordingly, claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 10, it appears that “causes” in line 6 should be replaced with “causing”. It appears that “running” in the 4th to last line should be “run” and “receiving” in the 2nd to last line should be “receive”.
As per claim 19, it appears that “one of” in “one of the controllable object” in line 9 should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 have been amended to include “overlaid portion of the field object” (or similar language). However, the specification does not support the above feature. For example, the specification describes “being dragged to overlay a full field object” (e.g. in paragraph 58). Note that previously the claims recited “overlaid portion of the plurality of field objects”, not of “the field object” and it appears that a controllable object instead overlays an entire field object. As such, the claims lack written description. At best, this is misleading.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 have also been amended to include “controllable object is a same shape as the field object to enable overlay” (or similar language). However, the specification does not support the above feature. For example, the specification generally describes “a user would be provided with five controllable objects 100 all of the same shape: the same shape as a field object” (e.g. in paragraph 54). While is describes a controllable object with the same shape as a field object, it does not specifically describe the same shape as the field object “is…to enable overlay”. As such, the claims lack written description.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 have also been amended to include “receiving an achievement in response running the mechanic object behavior on the mechanic object within the active region” (or similar language). However, the specification does not support the above feature. For example, the specification describes “utilize the various controllable objects 100-102 provided to them to manipulate the mechanic objects 41-43 within the field object grid 17 to achieve a certain pre-defined goal or mission which is displayed to the user before beginning a session… achieve a vertical mechanic object 812 with a level two status (quantity 811), a horizontal mechanic object 814 (quantity 813), and an immobile mechanic object 816” (e.g. in paragraphs 58 and 75). It does not specifically describe that an achievement is received in response to running the mechanic object behavior on the mechanic object within the active region. As such, the claims lack written description.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
As per claim 19, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the mechanic objects” in line 6. There is lack of antecedent basis for “the overlaid portion of the field object” in line 6.
Response to Arguments
Previous objections to the claims not included in this action have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) not included in this action have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that “it is submitted that the art fails to teach features hereby amended in the claims” referring to figure 7 (stating “FIG. A below is taken from FIG. 7 in the drawings and illustrate the features hereby amended in the base claims”), there does not appear to be any amendments made specifically directed to figure 7. Moreover, the FIG. A presented by applicant in the remarks actually shows figures 10-12, not figure 7, which is confusing. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., test mechanic objects setting for game players or patients may vary according to customized settings by game testers or doctors, and the application is not a fixed apparatus. These features are unique to the present invention) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Customization of settings are not recited in the claims. Applicant then appears to argue that the references allegedly do not teach “prior to causing the workplace to be displayed on the interface, causing a mission screen to be displayed on the interface, the mission screen indicating a mechanic object goal”. However, this limitation does not appear in any of the claims. Similarly, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In particular, claims 1 and 3-9 do not have any limitations related to a mission screen. Other claims do not recite the argued features as a whole, only generally referring to a mission display, which is taught by Oh (US 20050171998 A1) as noted in the rejections, but is not addressed by applicant. As such, the rejections stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20170354886 A1) in view of Abe et al. (US 20140218361 A1) and Matsumoto (US 20030190951 A1).
As per independent claim 1, Sato teaches a method for providing a game or test application comprising:
causing a workplace to be displayed on an interface, the workplace comprising a field object and a mechanic object, wherein the mechanic object is positioned within a field object (e.g. in paragraphs 5 and 95-96, “a game apparatus, comprising a terrain arrangement portion, a character movement control portion, a calculation portion, a terrain determination portion, and a game processing portion. The terrain arrangement portion is configured to arrange terrain objects in a virtual space. The terrain object is also called, for example, a background object, and means various kinds of objects such as a flat plane, a hill (slope), a floor, a wall, a cliff, a tree, etc. The character movement control portion is configured to move a character object in the virtual space based on an operation of a player… other character objects such as an enemy object and item objects are also included”);
causing a controllable object to be displayed on the interface, wherein a user selects the controllable object (e.g. in paragraphs 5 and 95-96, “In this game screen 100, a character object (player object 102) and a terrain object 104 are included. Although omitted in FIG. 4, in the game screen 100 (virtual space), other character objects such as…item objects are also included” and figure 4; player object controllable by player and item object controllable by player);
receiving a command to move the controllable object to a position that overlays the field object (e.g. in paragraphs 5, 94, and 96, “The character movement control portion is configured to move a character object in the virtual space based on an operation of a player” which overlays the terrain object(s); the player object in figure 4 is at least standing on some type of terrain, i.e. overlays flat ground, uneven ground, etc.);
converting an overlaid portion of the field object to an active region (e.g. in paragraphs 5 and 94-96, “the GPU 22b performs modeling of various kinds of objects in a three-dimensional virtual space under instructions of the CPU 20. That is, various kinds of objects are produced or arranged in the virtual space, whereby a certain sight (scene) can be produced”; the portion of the scene that a player interacts is interpreted as an “active” region, e.g. where the player is “moving” or “fight with an enemy object… acquire an item object”, etc.);
identifying a mechanic object contained within the active region (e.g. in paragraph 95, “In this game screen 100, a character object (player object 102) and a terrain object 104 are included. Although omitted in FIG. 4, in the game screen 100 (virtual space), other character objects such as an enemy object and item objects are also included” and figure 4); and
running a mechanic object behavior on the mechanic object within the active region (e.g. in paragraph 96, “player object 102 performs, according to an operation of a player, arbitrary actions such as changing a direction in the virtual space, moving in the virtual space, using an item like arms and so on. Therefore, for example, the player object 102 may fight with an enemy object, and may acquire an item object”),
but does not specifically teach wherein the controllable object is a same shape as the field object to enable overlay; and receiving an achievement in response to running the mechanic object behavior on the mechanic object within the active region.
However, Abe teaches a controllable object being a same shape as a field object to enable overlay (e.g. in paragraph 216, “tossing the block BL1 towards the position P11” and figures 24A-24B showing that the block is the same square shape as the field object that enables overlay; note also paragraphs 217-218 and figures 25-26 showing running a mechanic behavior within an active region). 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 teachings of Sato to include the teachings of Abe because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of incorporating well-known shapes (also amounts a simple substitution that yields predictable results (e.g. see KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398,82 USPQ2d 1385,1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(B)),
but does not specifically teach receiving an achievement in response to running the mechanic object behavior on the mechanic object within the active region.
However, Matsumoto teaches receiving an achievement in response to running a mechanic object behavior on a mechanic object within an active region (e.g. in paragraphs 29 and 194, “the game character collects treasures its finds in its surroundings… collected items would merit the achievement of a CAT power, which achievement could be informed to the player by way of a display”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsumoto because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing the player to feel a sense of accomplishment.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches indicating a quantity available for user manipulation associated with each of a plurality of controllable objects (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 111, “FIG. 5A shows a start position P.sub.m (m=1, 2, 3, 4, 5) for the determination object 120 that is set to the player object” and/or paragraphs 95-96, “item objects are also included…acquire an item object”).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein running the mechanic object behavior comprises causing the mechanic object within the active region to move horizontally within the active region (e.g. Sato, in paragraphs 97-98, “an animation when the player object 102 moves is changed according to terrain, or an action is selected according to terrain around the player object” and figure 5b and 9a travel direction horizontal on a flat surface).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein running the mechanic object behavior comprises causing the mechanic object within the active region to move vertically within the active region (e.g. Sato, in paragraphs 97-98 and 100, “an animation when the player object 102 moves is changed according to terrain, or an action is selected according to terrain around the player object… up a hill”).
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20170354886 A1) in view of Abe et al. (US 20140218361 A1) and Matsumoto (US 20030190951 A1) and further in view of Matsushita et al. (US 20110319164 A1).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the mechanic object is a first mechanic object, the method further comprising: detecting a collision between the first mechanic object and a second mechanic object (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 5, “calculate collision positions that a plurality of determination regions having a three-dimensional shape collide with the terrain object respectively in case that the determination regions are moved in directions that are respectively decided according to predetermined rules from a plurality of positions that are relatively set from a position of the character object”); determining that the second mechanic object moved vertically prior to the collision (e.g. Sato, in paragraphs 14 and 117, “the position being a position that is further shifted from a position that a determination object is moved by a first predetermined amount from the collision position in a direction perpendicular to a direction of a normal of the terrain object at the collision position and in the traveling direction of the character object, by a second predetermined amount in a vertically downward direction… In case of moving or casting the determination object 120 to the target position Q.sub.1 from the start position P.sub.1, it is determined whether the determination object 120 collides with (surface of) the terrain object”),
but does not specifically teach in response to detecting the collision, removing the second mechanic object from the interface.
However, Matsushita teaches in response to detecting a collision, removing a second mechanic object from an interface (e.g. in paragraph 25, “character 98 having a function of removing an object, which exists in the bottom of the game field 91, to the outside of the game field 91 is displayed in the bottom of the screen”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsushita because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving collision mechanics of the game and/or providing feedback.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the mechanic object is a first mechanic object, comprising: detecting a collision between the first mechanic object and a second mechanic object (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 5, “calculate collision positions that a plurality of determination regions having a three-dimensional shape collide with the terrain object respectively in case that the determination regions are moved in directions that are respectively decided according to predetermined rules from a plurality of positions that are relatively set from a position of the character object”); determining that the second mechanic object has not moved prior to the collision (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 115, “it is unnecessary to actually move the determination object 120, and if it is determined that the determination object 120 collides, thereafter, it does not need to perform calculation for moving the determination object 120 to the target position Q.sub.m”),
but does not specifically teach in response to detecting the collision, removing the first mechanic object from the interface.
However, Matsushita teaches in response to detecting a collision, removing a first mechanic object from an interface (e.g. in paragraph 25, “character 98 having a function of removing an object, which exists in the bottom of the game field 91, to the outside of the game field 91 is displayed in the bottom of the screen”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsushita because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving collision mechanics of the game and/or providing feedback.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the mechanic object is a first mechanic object, the method further comprising: detecting a collision between the first mechanic object and a second mechanic object (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 5, “calculate collision positions that a plurality of determination regions having a three-dimensional shape collide with the terrain object respectively in case that the determination regions are moved in directions that are respectively decided according to predetermined rules from a plurality of positions that are relatively set from a position of the character object”),
but does not specifically teach in response to detecting the collision, removing the first mechanic object from the interface; and adjusting a value associated with the second mechanic object based on a value associated with the first mechanic object.
However, Matsushita teaches in response to detecting a collision, removing a first mechanic object from an interface (e.g. in paragraph 25, “character 98 having a function of removing an object, which exists in the bottom of the game field 91, to the outside of the game field 91 is displayed in the bottom of the screen”) and adjusting a value associated with the second mechanic object based on a value associated with the first mechanic object (e.g. in paragraph 26, “As described previously, in the game according to the present embodiment, the shape of an object is altered by a collision with another object. However, the alteration achieved by a physical calculation after precisely modeling the shape of the object requires heavy computational load. Thus, several sets of data on the shape of the object are prepared depending on the degree of the alteration in advance, and the shape of the object is altered in stages by an alteration”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsushita because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving collision mechanics of the game and/or providing feedback.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and the combination further teaches displaying an indicator on the interface based on the value associated with the second mechanic object (e.g. Matsushita, in paragraph 26, “Thus, several sets of data on the shape of the object are prepared depending on the degree of the alteration in advance, and the shape of the object is altered in stages by an alteration”).
Claims 10, 12-13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20170354886 A1) in view of Abe et al. (US 20140218361 A1), Matsumoto (US 20030190951 A1), and Oh (US 20050171998 A1).
Claims 10, 12-13, and 16 are the system claims corresponding to method claims 1, 3-4, and 7 and are rejected under the same reasons set forth, and the combination further teaches a user device comprising a user interface (e.g. Sato, in paragraphs 68 and 85, “terminal device 14 comprises an operation portion such as…a display portion such as an LCD”) and a server communicably coupled to the user device, the server comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage device storing executable instructions (e.g. Sato, in paragraphs 68-72 and 79, “terminal device 14…receives data…from the game apparatus [which] performs the game processing”, i.e. game apparatus is a server, including “CPU… memory” to execute program steps), but does not specifically teach cause on an interface a display of a mission. However, Oh teaches cause on an interface a display of a mission (e.g. in paragraph 64, “game server 162…extracts a mission from the mission database part 320 through the game logic server 150 … When the…game server 162 selects the mission…, an image representing the mission…is displayed on the monitor of the user's computer”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Oh because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing the user to understand what he/she needs to achieve.
As per independent claim 19, Sato teaches a method for providing a game or test application comprising:
receiving, from a server (e.g. in paragraphs 68-70 and 79, “terminal device 14…receives data…from the game apparatus [which] performs the game processing”, i.e. game apparatus is a server), instructions to
display a workplace on a user interface, the workplace comprising a field object and a mechanic object, wherein one of the mechanic objects is positioned within a field object (e.g. in paragraphs 5 and 95-96, “a game apparatus, comprising a terrain arrangement portion, a character movement control portion, a calculation portion, a terrain determination portion, and a game processing portion. The terrain arrangement portion is configured to arrange terrain objects in a virtual space. The terrain object is also called, for example, a background object, and means various kinds of objects such as a flat plane, a hill (slope), a floor, a wall, a cliff, a tree, etc. The character movement control portion is configured to move a character object in the virtual space based on an operation of a player… other character objects such as an enemy object and item objects are also included”);
receiving, from the server, instructions to display a controllable object on the user interface (e.g. in paragraphs 5 and 95-96, “In this game screen 100, a character object (player object 102) and a terrain object 104 are included. Although omitted in FIG. 4, in the game screen 100 (virtual space), other character objects such as an enemy object and item objects are also included” and figure 4; player object controllable by player, enemy object controllable by CPU, and item object controllable by player);
receiving, from a user, an indication to move one of the controllable object to a position that overlays the field object (e.g. in paragraphs 5, 94, and 96, “The character movement control portion is configured to move a character object in the virtual space based on an operation of a player” which overlays the terrain object(s); the player object in figure 4 is at least standing on some type of terrain, i.e. overlays flat ground, uneven ground, etc.);
transmitting the indication to the server (e.g. in paragraphs 68-70, “terminal device 14 transmits…data to…the game apparatus”);
receiving, from the server, instructions to convert the overlaid portion of the field object to an active region (e.g. in paragraphs 5 and 94-96, “the GPU 22b performs modeling of various kinds of objects in a three-dimensional virtual space under instructions of the CPU 20. That is, various kinds of objects are produced or arranged in the virtual space, whereby a certain sight (scene) can be produced”; the portion of the scene that a player interacts is interpreted as an “active” region, e.g. where the player is “moving” or “fight with an enemy object… acquire an item object”, etc.);
identifying a mechanic object contained within the active region (e.g. in paragraph 95, “In this game screen 100, a character object (player object 102) and a terrain object 104 are included. Although omitted in FIG. 4, in the game screen 100 (virtual space), other character objects such as an enemy object and item objects are also included” and figure 4);
receiving, from the server, instructions to run a mechanic object behavior on the mechanic object within the active region (e.g. in paragraph 96, “player object 102 performs, according to an operation of a player, arbitrary actions such as changing a direction in the virtual space, moving in the virtual space, using an item like arms and so on. Therefore, for example, the player object 102 may fight with an enemy object, and may acquire an item object”), wherein the mechanic object behavior comprises at least one of: moving the mechanic object within the active vertically within the active region; or moving the mechanic object within the active region horizontally within the active region (e.g. in paragraphs 97-98 and 100, “an animation when the player object 102 moves is changed according to terrain, or an action is selected according to terrain around the player object… up a hill” and figure 5b and 9a travel direction horizontal on a flat surface),
but does not specifically teach receiving, from a server, instructions to display a mission goal on a display; wherein the controllable object is a same shape as the plurality of field objects to enable overlay; and receiving an achievement in response to running the mechanic object behavior on the mechanic object within the active region.
However, Abe teaches a controllable object is a same shape as a plurality of field objects to enable overlay (e.g. in paragraph 216, “tossing the block BL1 towards the position P11” and figures 24A-24B showing that the block is the same square shape as the field object that enables overlay; note also paragraphs 217-218 and figures 25-26 showing running a mechanic behavior within an active region). 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 teachings of Sato to include the teachings of Abe because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of incorporating well-known shapes (also amounts a simple substitution that yields predictable results (e.g. see KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398,82 USPQ2d 1385,1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(B)),
but does not specifically teach receiving, from a server, instructions to display a mission goal on a display; and receiving an achievement in response to running the mechanic object behavior on the mechanic object within the active region.
However, Matsumoto teaches receiving an achievement in response running a mechanic object behavior on a mechanic object within an active region (e.g. in paragraphs 29 and 194, “the game character collects treasures its finds in its surroundings… collected items would merit the achievement of a CAT power, which achievement could be informed to the player by way of a display”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsumoto because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing the player to feel a sense of accomplishment,
but does not specifically teach receiving, from a server, instructions to display a mission goal on a display.
However, Oh teaches receiving instructions to display a mission goal on a display from a server (e.g. in paragraph 64, “game server 162…extracts a mission from the mission database part 320 through the game logic server 150 … When the…game server 162 selects the mission…, an image representing the mission…is displayed on the monitor of the user's computer”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Oh because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of allowing the user to understand what he/she needs to achieve.
Claims 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20170354886 A1) in view of Abe et al. (US 20140218361 A1), Matsumoto (US 20030190951 A1), and Oh (US 20050171998 A1) and further in view of Matsushita et al. (US 20110319164 A1).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the mechanic object is a first mechanic object, wherein the server is configured to detect a collision between the first mechanic object and a second mechanic object (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 5, “calculate collision positions that a plurality of determination regions having a three-dimensional shape collide with the terrain object respectively in case that the determination regions are moved in directions that are respectively decided according to predetermined rules from a plurality of positions that are relatively set from a position of the character object”); determine that the second mechanic object moved vertically prior to the collision (e.g. Sato, in paragraphs 14 and 117, “the position being a position that is further shifted from a position that a determination object is moved by a first predetermined amount from the collision position in a direction perpendicular to a direction of a normal of the terrain object at the collision position and in the traveling direction of the character object, by a second predetermined amount in a vertically downward direction… In case of moving or casting the determination object 120 to the target position Q.sub.1 from the start position P.sub.1, it is determined whether the determination object 120 collides with (surface of) the terrain object”),
but does not specifically teach in response to detecting the collision, remove the second mechanic object from the interface.
However, Matsushita teaches in response to detecting a collision, removing a second mechanic object from an interface (e.g. in paragraph 25, “character 98 having a function of removing an object, which exists in the bottom of the game field 91, to the outside of the game field 91 is displayed in the bottom of the screen”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsushita because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving collision mechanics of the game and/or providing feedback.
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the mechanic object is a first mechanic object, wherein the server is configured to detect a collision between the first mechanic object and a second mechanic object (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 5, “calculate collision positions that a plurality of determination regions having a three-dimensional shape collide with the terrain object respectively in case that the determination regions are moved in directions that are respectively decided according to predetermined rules from a plurality of positions that are relatively set from a position of the character object”); determine that the second mechanic object has not moved prior to the collision (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 115, “it is unnecessary to actually move the determination object 120, and if it is determined that the determination object 120 collides, thereafter, it does not need to perform calculation for moving the determination object 120 to the target position Q.sub.m”),
but does not specifically teach in response to detecting the collision, remove the first mechanic object from the interface.
However, Matsushita teaches in response to detecting a collision, removing a first mechanic object from an interface (e.g. in paragraph 25, “character 98 having a function of removing an object, which exists in the bottom of the game field 91, to the outside of the game field 91 is displayed in the bottom of the screen”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsushita because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving collision mechanics of the game and/or providing feedback.
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the mechanic object is a first mechanic object, wherein the server is configured to detect a collision between the first mechanic object and a second mechanic object (e.g. Sato, in paragraph 5, “calculate collision positions that a plurality of determination regions having a three-dimensional shape collide with the terrain object respectively in case that the determination regions are moved in directions that are respectively decided according to predetermined rules from a plurality of positions that are relatively set from a position of the character object”),
but does not specifically teach in response to detecting the collision, remove the first mechanic object from the interface; and adjust a value associated with the second mechanic object based on a value associated with the first mechanic object.
However, Matsushita teaches in response to detecting a collision, removing a first mechanic object from an interface (e.g. in paragraph 25, “character 98 having a function of removing an object, which exists in the bottom of the game field 91, to the outside of the game field 91 is displayed in the bottom of the screen”) and adjusting a value associated with the second mechanic object based on a value associated with the first mechanic object (e.g. in paragraph 26, “As described previously, in the game according to the present embodiment, the shape of an object is altered by a collision with another object. However, the alteration achieved by a physical calculation after precisely modeling the shape of the object requires heavy computational load. Thus, several sets of data on the shape of the object are prepared depending on the degree of the alteration in advance, and the shape of the object is altered in stages by an alteration”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsushita because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving collision mechanics of the game and/or providing feedback.
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the server is configured to display an indicator on the interface based on the value associated with the second mechanic object (e.g. Matsushita, in paragraph 26, “Thus, several sets of data on the shape of the object are prepared depending on the degree of the alteration in advance, and the shape of the object is altered in stages by an alteration”).
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated and the combination further teaches detecting a collision between the plurality of mechanic objects and in response to detecting the collision, transmitting an indication of the collision to the server (e.g. Sato, in paragraphs 5, 68-70, 79, and 117, “calculate collision positions that a plurality of determination regions having a three-dimensional shape collide with the terrain object respectively in case that the determination regions are moved in directions that are respectively decided according to predetermined rules from a plurality of positions that are relatively set from a position of the character object… transmits…data to…the game apparatus”),
but does not specifically teach receiving an adjustment of a value associated with the mechanic objects; and displaying the adjustment on the user interface.
However, Matsushita teaches receiving an adjustment of a value associated with mechanic objects and displaying the adjustment on a user interface (e.g. in paragraph 26, “As described previously, in the game according to the present embodiment, the shape of an object is altered by a collision with another object. However, the alteration achieved by a physical calculation after precisely modeling the shape of the object requires heavy computational load. Thus, several sets of data on the shape of the object are prepared depending on the degree of the alteration in advance, and the shape of the object is altered in stages by an alteration”). 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 teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Matsushita because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving collision mechanics of the game and/or providing feedback.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example,
Umaki et al. (US 20090209334 A1) teaches prior to causing a workplace to be displayed on an interface, causing a mission screen to be displayed on the interface, the mission screen indicating a goal (e.g. in paragraph 160, “a detailed explanation (achievement condition) [i.e. mission] of the selected trial and a message that asks the player whether or not to challenge the trial are displayed on the trial description screen [i.e. mission screen]. When the player has selected the item "challenge" on the trial description screen, the trial period starts [i.e. prior to]”).
Amano et al. (US 20140028544 A1) teaches “the moving direction is indicated by either one of left, right, top and bottom, and the current position and the collision determining position are represented by the coordinates” (e.g. in paragraph 166 and figure 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241. 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.
/W.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2144 05/02/2026
Prosecution Insights