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 .
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 03/16/2026. Presently, claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s representative alleges the following:
In regards to amended claim 1, “the NFOA's determination that ‘a message can also be introduced to the virtual space of the video game’ is based purely on speculation” (Page 15 of Remarks).
In regards to amended claim 1, “Kern fails to teach the claim feature wherein ‘the game controller is configured to incorporate into the video of the video game in a second incorporation manner differing from the first incorporation manner, the message...’ (Page 17 of Remarks).
Regarding point (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s representative argues that “the NFOA's determination that ‘a message can also be introduced to the virtual space of the video game’ is based purely on speculation” (Page 15 of Remarks). Furthermore, “the NFOA's proposed modification would not have been obvious under § 103, because ‘obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention’. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ‘The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.’. Applicant respectfully asserts that the obviousness rejections in view of Kern are improper because these rejections impermissibly rely on the Examiner's speculation to cure the admitted deficiencies of Kern” (Page 16 of Remarks).
In response to the arguments above, Kern allows a list of options for the spectator to interact with the game space, such as (1) introduce an enemy, (2) award gift, (3) send message, (4) select an adversary, and so forth (col 6 lines 8-11), these options allow the spectator to introduce any of these options inside the virtual space of the video game. Introducing a message inside the virtual space of the video game to be displayed is NOT a speculation, this is what the art discloses. Examiner believes that applicant is confusing assets in a video game (such as a message, gift, adversary, etc.) being introduced and displayed in a video with how they are specifically incorporated or displayed inside of the virtual space of the video game. What applicant is claiming is “the imparting the visual effect comprises displaying, in the virtual space of the video game, the message included in at least one of the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses” and this is directed to introducing or displaying a message inside of the virtual space of the video game. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that introducing a message in the virtual space of a video game will display it in the virtual space of the video game. (See 103 rejection below)
Regarding point (2), the examiner notes that Kern is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
Applicant’s representative argues that “Kern fails to teach the claim feature wherein ‘the game controller is configured to incorporate into the video of the video game in a second incorporation manner differing from the first incorporation manner, the message...’ At best, Kern at col. 6, line 10 merely describes an interactivity module that may provide spectators an option of ‘send message’. However, Kern says nothing to indicate that any game controller is configured to incorporate a message ‘into the video of the video game in a second incorporation manner differing from the first incorporation manner’, in accordance with claim 1” (Page 17 of Remarks).
In response to the arguments above, the office action relies on a newly found prior art reference of Legend of Dungeon as evidenced by “[Vinesauce] Vinny - Legend of Dungeon: Masters [Chat Participation] (part 3)” (necessitated by applicant’s amendment) to teach that messages sent by spectators inside the virtual space of a video game can be incorporated in different manners. (See 103 rejection below)
Regarding claims 8-10, since they recite similar features to claim 1, they will be rejected with the newly found prior art as stated above. Furthermore, these claims and their associated dependent claims will also be rejected. Therefore, the rejection is maintained as present below.
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 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern et al. (US 8628424 B1; hereinafter Kern) in view of Legend of dungeon as evidenced by "[Vinesauce] Vinny - Legend of Dungeon: Masters [Chat Participation] (part 3)" (hereinafter Legend).
Regarding claims 1, and 8-10, Kern discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having recorded therein a program, the program causing a processor of a game apparatus to function as: a game controller (col 9 lines 23-37) configured to execute a video game and generate video information indicative of a video of the video game (videogames; col 2 lines 15-19), the video of the video game indicating a progression of the video game in a virtual space of the video game (progression of video game shown in Fig 4); and a generator configured to generate analysis information (this analysis information can be the actions, feedback, and input of an spectator in col 5 lines 50-53, for example feedback from spectator input based on analysis of quantity and time constraints; col 6 lines 1-3) obtained by analyzing a plurality of pieces of game message information output (messages as inputs from an spectator in col 6 lines 8-11) from a plurality of terminal apparatuses configured to display a distributed video based on the video information (this is a networked gaming system with multiple terminal apparatuses for spectators and active players; col 1 lines 26-33), wherein: each of the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses includes a message related to at least one of the distributed video or the video game (spectators can choose to sending a message; col 6 lines 8-11).
Kern does not explicitly disclose the game controller is configured to, based on progress status information indicating a progress of the video game, impart to the video of the video game a visual effect that is in accordance with the analysis information, the progress status information indicating that the video game is in progress either in a first progression period or in a second progression period, the imparting the visual effect comprises displaying, in the virtual space of the video game, the message included in at least one of the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses, the message being related to the at least one of the distributed video or the video game, when the progress status information indicates that the video game is in progress in the first progression period, the game controller is configured to incorporate into the video of the video game in a first incorporation manner, the message related to the at least one of the distributed video or the video game, and when the progress status information indicates that the video game is in progress in the second progression period, the game controller is configured to incorporate into the video of the video game in a second incorporation manner differing from the first incorporation manner, the message related to the at least one of the distributed video or the video game.
However, Legends focuses on a game where spectators can interact with the virtual space of a video, which relates to Kern because they both have games where spectators can interact with the virtual space of the video game while the user is playing. Legend teaches the game controller is configured to, based on progress status information indicating a progress of the video game (progress status information is defined in the specification of the present invention as information that indicates the progress of the video game, in this game there is information to indicate the progress of the game by levels as shown in 9:31-9:35 and 14:08-14:12), impart to the video of the video game a visual effect that is in accordance with the analysis information (introduction of item and message with a visual effect from input of spectator as shown in 9:32-9:35 where the user named Juju-Fish sent an apple with the message “This is an apple”), the progress status information indicating that the video game is in progress either in a first progression period (level 1 as a first progression period shown in 9:31-9:35) or in a second progression period (level 2 as a second progression period shown in 14:08-14:12), the imparting the visual effect comprises displaying, in the virtual space of the video game (visual effect shown in 9:32-9:35 where the user named Juju-Fish sent an apple with the message “This is an apple”), the message included in at least one of the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses (this is inherent because the game Legend of Dungeon is implemented so that spectators in twitch, from their own computer or electronic device, can send items with messages inside the virtual space of the game), the message being related to the at least one of the distributed video or the video game (shown in 9:32-9:35 that shows the message related to the video of the video game), when the progress status information indicates that the video game is in progress in the first progression period (level 1 as a first progression period shown in 9:31-9:35), the game controller is configured to incorporate into the video of the video game in a first incorporation manner, the message related to the at least one of the distributed video or the video game (here the message and item are incorporated by leaving the item with the message on the floor without moving as shown in 9:32-9:35), and when the progress status information indicates that the video game is in progress in the second progression period (level 2 as a second progression period shown in 14:08-14:12), the game controller is configured to incorporate into the video of the video game in a second incorporation manner differing from the first incorporation manner, the message related to the at least one of the distributed video or the video game (here the message and item are incorporated by having a moving item with the message as shown in 9:32-9:35 with a penguin moving with a message on top of him).
Thus, 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 Kern to implement the teaching of Legend because by incorporating visual effects in different manners it will force different reactions and actions from the player. For example, if the object and message is static, then the user can choose to approach it, if the object and message are moving, then the user can choose to chase it or run away from it.
Regarding claim 2, Kern discloses the analysis information includes message tally information related to a number of the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses (feedback based on quantity; col 6 lines 1-3), and the game controller is configured to impart to the video of the video game a visual effect (because of the interaction of spectators, multiple visual effects are generated inside the virtual space of the game; col 5 lines 45-49) that is in accordance with the message tally information (a message can be an input from the spectators as mentioned in col 6 lines 8-11 and spectators can have their actions, feedback and/or input alter the virtual game environment as mentioned in col 5 lines 50-53 and some of that feedback information can include quantity and/or time constrains in col 6 lines 1-3 that would be message tally information).
Regarding claim 3, Kern discloses the message tally information indicates the number of the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses during a tally period decided based on the current time (feedback based on quantity and time constraints; col 6 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Kern discloses the analysis information includes message content information obtained by analyzing content of each of the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses (content like "thank you"; col 7 lines 11-16), and the game controller is configured to impart to the video of the video game a visual effect (because of the interaction of spectators, multiple visual effects are generated inside the virtual space of the game in col 5 lines 45-49 and a message can be an input from the spectators as mentioned in col 6 lines 8-11) that is in accordance with the message content information (“thank you" message is content information in col 7 lines 11-16 and spectator interaction with the virtual space of the video game to impart a visual effect making a change within the gaming environment based on selection; col 3 lines 54-65).
Regarding claim 5, Kern discloses the analysis information includes message evaluation information of a plurality of evaluations on a plurality of messages corresponding to the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses (message evaluation information can be information indicating the number of messages that received positive reactions and information indicating number of positive reactions like applause from a threshold number of spectators shown in col 5 lines 50-57 and can comprise quantity information shown in col 6 lines 1-3), and the game controller is configured to impart to the video of the video game a visual effect that is in accordance with the message evaluation information (spectator interaction with the virtual space of the video game to impart a visual effect; col 3 lines 54-65).
Regarding claim 6, Kern discloses wherein the game controller includes: a decider configured to decide content to display in accordance with the analysis information (deciding which options to display; col 6 lines 8-11); and an imparter configured to impart, to the video of the video game, the visual effect that is in accordance with the content to display decided by the decider (spectator interaction with the virtual space of the video game to impart a visual effect; col 3 lines 54-65).
Regarding claim 12, Kern does not explicitly disclose wherein the second progression period is a progression period of a different type from the first progression period or a period in which the video game is in progress in a second progression mode different from a first progression mode in the first progression period.
However, Legend teaches wherein the second progression period is a progression period of a different type from the first progression period or a period in which the video game is in progress in a second progression mode different from a first progression mode in the first progression period (the first and second progression periods are the levels as shown in 9:31-9:35 and 14:08-14:12 because there is a level 1 for a first progression period and a level 2 for a second progression period).
Thus, 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 Kern to implement the teaching of Legend because different progression periods can clearly show the player how far he has progressed into the game. For example, if a game has ten levels and the game shows the player is currently on level 2, it means the player still has 8 more levels to finish the game. This gives the player a sense of how much he has progressed and how much he still has left.
Regarding claim 14, Kern discloses wherein, in the first progress period, the game controller is further configured to determine whether the message related to at least one of the distributed video or the video game is displayed as a superimposed display image (icons, sound effects, visual effects, or any other combination may be generated as disclosed in col 6 lines 62-67 and as an example, these can be images superimposed on the video game) in a limited area of the video of the video game (we already know these alterations only cover an area of the video game space, for example, an alteration of introducing an enemies 425 and 430 happens in a limited area shown in col 6 lines 8-11 and Fig 4).
Regarding claim 15, Kern discloses wherein the game controller is further configured to impart to the video of the video game both the visual effect (spectator interaction with the virtual space of the video game to impart a visual effect; col 3 lines 54-65) and an auditory effect (audio feedback; col 6 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 19, Kern does not explicitly disclose wherein in the first incorporation manner, the game controller is configured to incorporate the message related to at least one of the distributed video or the video game in a limited area of the video of the video game, and in the second incorporation manner, the game controller is configured to incorporate the message related to at least one of the distributed video or the video game in an area that is larger than the limited area.
However, Legend teaches wherein in the first incorporation manner, the game controller is configured to incorporate the message related to at least one of the distributed video or the video game in a limited area of the video of the video game (here the message and item are incorporated by leaving the item with the message on the floor in a limited area without moving as shown in 9:32-9:35), and in the second incorporation manner, the game controller is configured to incorporate the message related to at least one of the distributed video or the video game in an area that is larger than the limited area (here the message and item are incorporated by having a moving item with the message as shown in 9:32-9:35 with a penguin moving with a message on top of him in an area larger than the limited area).
Thus, 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 Kern to implement the teaching of Legend because by incorporating visual effects in different manners it will force different reactions and actions from the player. For example, if the object and message is static, then the user can choose to approach it, if the object and message are moving, then the user can choose to chase it or run away from it.
Regarding claim 20, Kern discloses imparting the visual effect of a message inside the virtual space of the video game, but does not explicitly disclose this visual effect to be displayed in an object that resides in the virtual space of the video game.
However, Legend teaches wherein the imparting the visual effect further comprises displaying, in an object that resides in the virtual space of the video game (every message here is being sent in an object sent inside the virtual space of the video game as shown in 9:32-9:35 with the apple and the message “this is an apple”), the message included in at least one of the plurality of pieces of game message information output from the plurality of terminal apparatuses, the message being related to the at least one of the distributed video or the video game (the message and object inherently come from the spectators in their terminal apparatuses and the message is related to the video game as shown in 9:32-9:35).
Thus, 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 Kern to implement the teaching of Legend because by incorporating a message with an object it allows the message to have more visual effects. The object adds another layer of visual effects to the message to clearly display it on the virtual space of the video game.
Claims 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern in view of Legend as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20020183115 A1; hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 13, Kern does not explicitly disclose when the video game is in progress in the first progression period, the progress of the video game is more likely to affect a final outcome of a match of the video game than when the video game is in progress in the second progression period.
However, Takahashi focuses on spectator interaction in regards to a game, such as a baseball game, which relates to Kern because Kern also has interactions of spectator in regards to a game. Takahashi teaches when the video game is in progress (first it is disclosed here that this baseball game plays just like a normal baseball game and a normal baseball game has multiple progression periods; ¶41) in the first progression period (the first progression period can be the period where the players are actively playing the game inside on of the innings), the progress of the video game is more likely to affect a final outcome of a match of the video game than when the video game is in progress in the second progression period (the second progression period can be when the innings are finished, which have less impact on the final outcome of the game).
Thus, 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 Kern to implement the teaching of Takahashi because games usually have multiple progression periods for the benefit that each progression period focuses on different aspects of the game to keep it more organized and clear for the player.
Regarding claim 16, Kern does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first progression period is an in-play period during which a state of a character or object of the video game in the virtual space of the video game is changeable based on an operation of a user of the game apparatus, and the second progression period is an out-of-play period in which the state of the character or object of the video game in the virtual space of the video game is not changeable based on an operation of the user of the game apparatus.
However, Takahashi focuses on spectator interaction in regards to a game, such as a baseball game, which relates to Kern because Kern also has interactions of spectator in regards to a game. Takahashi teaches wherein: the first progression period is an in-play period (the baseball game is played as a normal baseball game in ¶41 and a play-in period inside each inning is inherent to a normal baseball game) during which a state of a character or object of the video game in the virtual space of the video game is changeable based on an operation of a user of the game apparatus (this is a substitution of players while playing during an inning in a baseball game), and the second progression period is an out-of-play period in which the state of the character or object of the video game in the virtual space of the video game is not changeable based on an operation of the user of the game apparatus (out of play period is when the inning is over and there are no substitutions during this period).
Thus, 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 Kern to implement the teaching of Takahashi because games, such as baseball, usually have multiple progression periods for the benefit that each progression period focuses on different aspects of the game to keep it more organized and clear for the player. Additionally some of these progression periods serve as in-game breaks for the players.
Regarding claim 17, Kern does not explicitly disclose wherein: the out-of-play period includes, during gameplay of the video game, a first period before a start of a match in the video game, a second period from an end of a first play period to a start of a second play period of the match, a third period after an end of the second play period, which play period is subsequent to the first play period, and a game suspension period during the first play period and the second play period, and the in-play period includes, during the gameplay of the video game, a fourth period including one or more portions of time excluding the first period, the second period, and the game suspension period.
However, Takahashi focuses on spectator interaction in regards to a game, such as a baseball game, which relates to Kern because Kern also has interactions of spectator in regards to a game. Takahashi teaches wherein: the out-of-play period includes, during gameplay of the video game, a first period before a start of a match in the video game (out-of-play periods are inherent to a normal baseball and can be divided in multiple periods, here the first period would be the period before the start of the first inning), a second period from an end of a first play period (the second period is the end of the 1st inning in a normal baseball game) to a start of a second play period of the match (to start the 2nd inning of a normal baseball game), a third period after an end of the second play period (inherent because a third period is just a period at the end of the 2nd inning in a normal baseball game), which play period is subsequent to the first play period (inherent because the 2nd inning comes after the 1st inning), and a game suspension period during the first play period and the second play period (inherent because suspension periods are inherent to a normal baseball game due to fouls or revisions of a play), and the in-play period includes, during the gameplay of the video game, a fourth period including one or more portions of time excluding the first period, the second period, and the game suspension period (inherent because this 4th period belonging to the in-play period of a normal baseball game happens while the players are actively playing, which excludes any suspension periods and any before or after of the innings because the players are not actively playing during these periods).
Thus, 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 Kern to implement the teaching of Takahashi because games, such as baseball, usually have multiple progression periods for the benefit that each progression period focuses on different aspects of the game to keep it more organized and clear for the player. Additionally some of these progression periods serve as in-game breaks for the players.
Regarding claim 18, Kern discloses and the limited area is an area located at an edge of a display unit displaying the video of the video game (input from spectators can introduce enemies or send a message as shown in col 6 lines 8-11 and as an example enemies 430 can be shown at the edge of the display screen in Fig 4). Kern does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first progression period is an in-play period during which a state of a character or object of the video game in the virtual space of the video game is changeable based on an operation of a user of the game apparatus, the second progression period is an out-of-play period in which the state of the character or object of the video game in the virtual space of the video game is not changeable based on an operation of the user of the game apparatus.
However, Takahashi focuses on spectator interaction in regards to a game, such as a baseball game, which relates to Kern because Kern also has interactions of spectator in regards to a game. Takahashi teaches wherein: the first progression period is an in-play period during which a state of a character or object of the video game in the virtual space of the video game is changeable based on an operation of a user of the game apparatus (inherent because while players are actively playing during the in-play period there can be a substitution of players in a normal baseball game), the second progression period is an out-of-play period in which the state of the character or object of the video game in the virtual space of the video game is not changeable based on an operation of the user of the game apparatus (inherent because during an out-of-play period, there can’t be any active substitutions).
Thus, 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 Kern to implement the teaching of Takahashi because games, such as baseball, usually have multiple progression periods for the benefit that each progression period focuses on different aspects of the game to keep it more organized and clear for the player. Additionally some of these progression periods serve as in-game breaks for the players.
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 JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights