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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 03/30/2026. Presently, claims 1-22 are pending.
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 1-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamed Marwan Mattar (US 11090568 B1; hereinafter Mattar) in view The Walking Dead (TellTale Games) as evidenced by Gamer’s Little Playground YouTube Video (The Walking Dead FULL Season 1 (Telltale Games) All Cutscenes 1080p HD 02/04/2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_ej3t8jvhw); hereinafter TWD1) and theRadBrad Youtube Video (The Walking Dead - Episode 1 - Gameplay Walkthrough - Part 1 - A NEW DAY (Xbox 360/PS3/PC) [HD] 04/27/2012 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9SnHso3ezE); hereinafter TWD2)
Regarding claim 1, Mattar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program (program code can be found embodied in a tangible non-transitory signal-bearing medium (recited in at least: Mattar [column 24, lines 39-40])) executable by one or more processors of an information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing program causes the one or more processors to execute (“that comprise computer readable storage media having program instructions embodied therewith, and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising one or more aspects of the above” (recited in at least: Mattar [column 61, lines 67])):
arranging a display object in association with a virtual area corresponding to a predetermined unit time period based on an arranging input by a user ( Further, user interface controls may be combined or divided into other sets of user interface controls such that similar functionality or the same functionality may be provided with very different looking user interfaces. Moreover, each of the user interface controls may be selected by a user using one or more input options, such as a mouse, touch screen input, or keyboard input, among other user interface input option (recited in at least: Mattar [column 18, lines 44-51]));
Mattar discloses storyboard generation systems that provides various options that a user can select on screen. However, Mattar doesn’t explicitly discuss outputting a first message to the user; determining, in response to receiving the arranging input by the user, whether the arranging input is performed responding to the first message or not responding to the first message based on a presence or absence of an output of the first message and based on an operation input of the user performed after the first message is output and before the arranging input is performed; outputting a second message among a second message candidates to the user when it is determined that the arranging input is performed not responding to the first message; and outputting a third message among a third message candidates to the user when it is determined that the arranging input by the user is performed responding to the first message, wherein the third message candidates are different at least in part from the second message candidates.
TWD1 teaches outputting a first message to the user TWD1 in FIG. 3a below shows that in the game scene that is associated with a time in a virtual area a first message to the user (see at least: FIG. 3a below at time stamp 1:41);
determining, in response to receiving the arranging input by the user, whether the arranging input is performed responding to the first message or not responding to the first message based on a presence or absence of an output of the first message and based on an operation input of the user performed after the first message is output and before the arranging input is performed TWD1 in FIGs 3a-b, and c below shows a variety of outputs that a user can select to continue the game. The white countdown bar that decreases and is considered an “absence” of an output to the first message or a user can select to remain “silent” by choosing the last option;
PNG
media_image1.png
954
1469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 3a: YouTube TWD1 Screengrab at 1:41)
PNG
media_image2.png
955
1467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 3b: YouTube TWD1 Screengrab at 1:44)
outputting a third message among a third message candidates to the user when it is determined that the arranging input by the user is performed responding to the first message, wherein the third message candidates are different at least in part from the second message candidates. TWD1 shows that there are many options to each of the responses to continue the game play, in FIG. 3d it shows that the user selected an option that resulted in a different message candidate that is different from the second message candidates (shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
969
1458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 3d: YouTube TWD1 Screengrab at 1:53)
The user in TWD1 did not show the second message candidate in the game in the YouTube video. However, TWD2 teaches a second message among a second message candidates to the user when it is determined that the arranging input is performed not responding to the first message. The input is performed and its not responding to the first message (the user selected not to respond/have the last option). The message that was shown to the user after is different than the third one (shown in FIGs 4a-b and d).
PNG
media_image4.png
958
1459
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 4a: YouTube TWD2 Screengrab at 2:57)
PNG
media_image5.png
960
1464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 4b: YouTube TWD2 Screengrab at 3:02)
PNG
media_image6.png
957
1462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 4d: YouTube TWD2 Screengrab at 3:11)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used given different message candidates based on the users input as shown in TWD1 and TWD2 into games that have stories as taught by Mattar. “The storyboard generation system can provide various options that the user can select in order to recreate the event from a different angle or perspective that would be more engaging from the user to view. The storyboard generation system can be configured to automatically change the perspective of certain events” (recited in at least: Mattar [column 19, lines 48-52]).
Regarding claim 2, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and TWD1 further teaches displaying a first button that receives an operation input for responding to the first message. TWD1 shows in FIG. 3a above that there are buttons the user can select as input to respond to the first message.
Regarding claim 3, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Mattar further teaches acquiring current time information, and outputting the first message which is different depending on the current time information (“During the event identification process, the events identified can be associated with a single point in time or may be associated with a range of time. The defined time frame can be a time period before and after a single time, the time range associated with the event, and/or the time frame associated with the event in addition to additional time before and or after the identified time frame.” (recited in at least: Mattar [column 22, lines 23-34])).
Regarding claim 4, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Mattar further teaches determining whether the current time information satisfies a time condition associated with the user, and outputting the first message that is differs according to the current time information when it is determined that the current time information satisfies the time condition associated with the user (“Additionally, different types of events may be associated with different time periods. In addition to the telemetry data, the biometric data associated with the same time period may also be included, such as audio or video of the player. Each identified event may have a start time and an end time. The event identification model may identify biometric data that is relevant to an identified event. For example, if a player was extremely excited after completing an event, the biometric data may include audio or video data that displays the user's excitement. The biometric data could be identified as being relevant for potentially inclusion with output of the event” (recited in at least: Mattar [column 22 lines 30-41])).
Regarding claim 5, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Mattar further teaches arranging a display object selected by the user from a plurality types of display objects in a virtual area (“The types of formats available may be determined based on the storyboard generation system and the game application. The formats may include a series of shorter videos highlighting the most important events, or a comic book style presentation. The various output formats may include a combination of video and still images. The storyboard may be part of a series of storyboards generated by the user, such as a series of gameplay session chapters” (recited in at least: Mattar [column 18, lines 58-65])).
Regarding claim 6, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and TWD1 further teaches further displaying at least a type of non-player character by selecting from a non-player character group including a plurality of types of non-player characters at a time that at least one of the first message, the second message and the third message is output. TWD1 shows that there are many NPCs (non-player characters) that are in the story and each one has message candidates for the user player to continue the story (shown in at least: FIGs 5a-c in attached NPL). The NPC group is talking and there are message outputs for each of them at a time.
Regarding claim 7, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and TWD1 further teaches displaying the non-player character by replacing at predetermined intervals. As the characters are talking in TWD1 YouTube video the message options and the displayed NPC is changed at predetermined intervals (shown in at least: FIGs 5a-c in attached NPL).
Regarding claim 8, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and TWD1 further teaches displaying the non-player character by selecting the non-player character that is designated in advance by the user. The player/user is able to make decisions about the NPCs in advanced before the next scene starts. In the event that a user doesn’t want a character to be displayed the player/user will select to do so at the time (see at least: FIG. 6a in the attached NPL).
Regarding claim 9, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Mattar further teaches outputting the second message being changed when the virtual area that the display object is arranged is a future virtual area compared with the virtual area to which the current time information corresponds (“The formats may include a series of shorter videos highlighting the most important events, or a comic book style presentation. The various output formats may include a combination of video and still images. The storyboard may be part of a series of storyboards generated by the user, such as a series of gameplay session chapters” (recited in at least: Mattar [column 18, lines 58-65])).
Regarding claim 10, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and TWD1 further teaches determining, based on a first probability, whether the first message to the user is to be output when going through the gameplay TWD shows that a user might not be able to select a response and that choosing not to respond is a response (see at least: FIG 2b attached YouTube Screengrabs NPL).
Regarding claim 13, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Mattar further teaches arranging the display object in the virtual area that is provided in a game application; and displaying a schedule of an in-game event in the game application (“The event pre population can place the events in chronological order, or prioritize the order based on defined criteria, such as by a rating associated with the importance of an event, the type of event, and/or other criteria. In some embodiments, the user may be able the reorder the display events using one or more filters (such as, for example, by event type, chronologically, alphabetically, and the like” (recited in at least: Mattar [column 19, lines 4-16])).
Regarding claim 14, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and TWD1 further teaches displaying, inside or near the first button that receives the operation input for responding to the first message, at least one of, at least a display object associated with the user and the display object associated with the user when satisfying a predetermined acquisition condition TWD1 shows in FIG. 1a that there are buttons and ways to select the response to the message candidates.
Regarding claim 15, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Mattar further teaches outputting a fourth message to the user based on determination that the arranging input by the user is performed responding to the first message (“the storyboard generation system may use machine learning models to determine how to modify the output of events that are preferred by users. For each event, the storyboard generation system may be configured to automatically perform the various modifications to the presentation of the events based on the storyboard configuration settings, user preference settings, social media data, and other types of inputs” (recited in at least: Mattar [column 12 lines 29-36]).
Regarding claim 16, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added different message candidates for users in a virtual area so they can continue to play the game and have more contents either in the game or with the use of machine learning to generate more storyboard content as taught by Mattar as recited above.
Regarding claim 17, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and TWD1 further teaches arranging one or more display objects each of which at least an attribute is assigned; displaying a second button that receives an operation input for responding to the fourth message; and displaying, inside or near the second button, a display object to which the same attribute as the display object used for responding to the first message is assigned when at least one of, at least a display object associated with the user displaying at least one of the display object associated with the user when satisfying a predetermined acquisition condition. TWD1 shows in FIG. 1a that there are buttons and ways to select the response to the message candidates. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added more buttons for the different message candidates for users in a virtual area so they can press on the correct button to continue the game. Without the buttons matching the right message candidate, the game would not continue.
Regarding claim 18, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and TWD1 further teaches arranging the display object including an object that reflects a current appearance of the player character object TWD1 shows the current appearance of the player character in the game in at least FIG. 1a of the attached NPL.
Regarding claim 19, An information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are caused to execute steps similar in scope to the steps executed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, an information processing method including steps similar in scope to the steps executed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and they further suggests wherein the first message is assigned a message attribute and the display object is assigned to an object attribute, wherein the determining, in response to receiving the arranging input by the user, whether the arranging input is performed responding to the first message or not responding to the first message is further based on whether the message attribute and the object attribute correspond.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to know that messages in a game and objects in a game would have their own attributes and when a user selects one the process for progression in the story picks the correct response according to the user’s input.
Regarding claim 22, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and they further suggest determining whether the message attribute of the first message corresponds to the object attribute of the display object, and in a case where it is determined that the message attribute of the first message does not correspond to the object attribute of the display object, it is determined that the arranging input is not responding to the first message.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to know that if a person/user selects a response to progress that their response should be matching the response they selected unless it’s a puzzle where they mechanic is to do the opposite. If the attributes have matching dialogue or responses within a game any game developer would know how to match them so that the user can enjoy progression throughout the game without incorrect bugs.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattar in view of TWD1 and TWD2 in further view of Tomohisa Naganuma (JP 6211641 B2; hereinafter Naganuma).
Regarding claim 11, Mattar in view of TWD1 in further view of TWD2 teach the disclosed matter as stated above; however, they do not explicitly disclose outputting a comment message according to a predetermined second probability when it is determined that the first message is not to be output; and not displaying a button that receives an operation input for responding to the comment message.
Naganuma teaches outputting a comment message according to a predetermined second probability when it is determined that the first message is not to be output; and not displaying a button that receives an operation input for responding to the comment message (“the predetermined screen is a screen for viewing comments on specific posts and for entering and transmitting comments on specific posts. In this case, for example, the message management unit 45 registers the comments respectively transmitted by the plurality of users via a predetermined screen in the message information database 412 in association with the corresponding posts, responds to the request from the user terminal 30 , Extracts comments to be displayed on a predetermined screen (for example, comments associated with specific posts specified by the user) from the message information database 412, and transmits the extracted comments to the user terminal 30” (recited in at least: Naganuma paragraph [0046])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a predetermined second probability output for the user as taught by Naganuma to assist in quickly playing game to the system of Mattar in view of TWD1 and TWD2 for the added benefit of streamlining responses that are always given by the user or typically ignored.
Regarding claim 12, Mattar in view of TWD1 and TWD2 in further view of Naganuma teach the disclosed matter as stated above and Naganuma further suggests, based on a third probability, whether the first message is to be displayed when the virtual area to which the current time information corresponds is capable of being arranged with only one display object; displaying the first message when the virtual area to which the current time information corresponds is capable of being arranged with two or more display objects; and not displaying the first message when it is determined that the first message is not to be displayed or when the virtual area is capable of arranging with no display object (With respect to the comments (the first and second comments from the top in the area 62 in FIG. 9) transmitted by other users in the comment display area 62, the contents of the user icon UI of the other user and the contents of the corresponding comment display objects 621 to be displayed are arranged side by side in the horizontal direction. Also, a user name is displayed below the user icon UI, and when this user name is selected, a profile screen of the corresponding user is displayed. The comment display object 621 has a balloon shape from the user icon UI positioned on the left side thereof. In the comment display area 62, only the comment display object 622 for displaying the contents of the corresponding comment is displayed for the comment (third comment from the top in the area 62 in FIG. 9 (that is, at the bottom) transmitted by the user himself/herself Are arranged. The comment display object 622 has a shape of a balloon from the right side (recited in at least: Naganuma paragraph [0067])).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant amendments to claim 3 remedy the informalities as stated in the claim objections in the Non-Final Action mailed out on 12/31/2025. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant states on page 2 of the remarks that the prior art “fails to teach, suggest or render obvious all of the claimed features in the rejected claims” with the example feature/claim limitation being lines 8-12 of independent claim 1 (and similarly claims 19 and 20). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The input and determination steps are taught in the prior art (TWD1 and TWD2 screengrabs where the user is shown the conversation and needing to select a response) and the response is given depending on the input of the player/user in the game. To move forward with gameplay the game chose to add a step of selecting a response if the user chooses that their input should be to not select one of the options. The user picks an input and the game determines the response given to the user playing the game. The Examiner suggests to the Applicant to include more of the determination steps into the claim language if the determination steps operations are different to make the record clear for the instant application. Furthermore, on page 3 of the remarks Applicant’s states that a “sticker” could be an object to respond with as an input, the record should be clearer in the claim language if the input needs to be a sticker or something more than what a user can see on the display and select as an object for their response to progress further into the game/application.
Applicant further states on pages 3-4 regarding claims 10-12 that the prior art does not teach the claimed language. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant states “not responding to the same does not teach the claimed determination” however, if a user picks a response, there is a 100% chance that the response will correspond to it (as shown in the YouTube screengrabs of TWD1 and TWD2 above), if the user chooses not to respond the determination step, then determines no response was given and gives a different message in turn. There is a period before the game has to determine which response to give when moving forward for the progression of the game. There are three probable answers or responses that can be given to a user as discussed in the rejection above.
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 SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights