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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-17 and 21-23 are 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 recite the limitation "the trigger event ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doucet et al. [US20180028915], hereinafter Doucet, in view of Soelberg et al. [US20190083882], hereinafter Soelberg.
Regarding claim 1, Doucet discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
Identifying a hit zone layout for a plurality of video game control elements, displayed on a display screen device, that are associated with a video game (Figs. 15-18, [0100], “If the bomb 522 thrown by the first character hits the second character 520, then the physical strength value of the second character 520 is decreased by a predetermined value. The bomb 524 thrown by the second character 520 hits the first character, then the physical strength value of the first character is decreased by a predetermined value”);
detecting an in-game event that necessitates one or more modifications to the hit zone layout on the display screen device; and causing, in response to detecting the trigger event, the display screen device to: enlarge a hit zone within the hit zone layout to favor at least one of the plurality of video game control elements; and reduce an additional hit zone adjacent to the enlarged hit zone within the hit zone layout ([0109], “In accordance with the position of the first character 532 and a game situation, the first image generation block 316 may enlarge or reduce part of the second game image and display a resultant image in the first character display area 530” --- with a fixed display screen size, enlarging a hit zone would result in reducing an additional hit zone adjacent to the enlarged hit zone).
However, Doucet does not explicitly disclose the trigger event being the in-game event comprising an encounter with a particular character of the video game during gameplay.
Nevertheless, Soelberg teaches in a like invention, the trigger event being the in-game event comprising an encounter with a particular character of the video game during gameplay (claim 2, “The method of claim 1, wherein the first triggering event comprises a gear used by an avatar in the video game, a change in health of the avatar, detected speech, an environment condition encountered by the avatar, a transition between detectable states in the video game, one or more sounds in the video game, or any combinations thereof”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Doucet, to have the in-game event comprising an encounter with a particular character of the video game during gameplay as trigger event, as taught by Soelberg, in order to make it more convenient for the players to hit the target when they encounter with a particular character.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Doucet and Soelberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the display screen device comprises a second screen device that functions as a game controller for the video game displayed on a first screen device (Doucet, [0087], “Referring to FIG. 9, there is shown an example of the first game image that is displayed on the head mounted display. When the user executes a flick operation on the touch pad 79 of the input apparatus 6, the first image generation block 316 displays a manner in which a throwing knife 508 is thrown from the position of the touch pad 79 in the image 500 of the input apparatus 6 displayed in the first game image in accordance with a moving distance of the flick operation”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Doucet and Soelberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the hit zone layout comprises a plurality of hit zones, with each hit zone corresponding to a specific video game control element (Doucet, Fig. 10 and [0088], “If the throwing knife 508 hits one of the targets 502, the game control block 311 drops the hit target 502”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Doucet and Soelberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein detecting the trigger event comprises detecting at least one of an in-game event or detecting a user selection related to the hit zone layout (Doucet, [0109], “In accordance with the position of the first character 532 and a game situation” and Soelberg, claim 2, “The method of claim 1, wherein the first triggering event comprises a gear used by an avatar in the video game, a change in health of the avatar, detected speech, an environment condition encountered by the avatar, a transition between detectable states in the video game, one or more sounds in the video game, or any combinations thereof”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Doucet and Soelberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the in-game event comprises at least one of: the gameplay reaching a predetermined point in the video game, the gameplay reaching a predetermined level in the video game, encountering a predetermined character in the video game, or encountering a predetermined object in the video game (Soelberg, claim 2, “The method of claim 1, wherein the first triggering event comprises a gear used by an avatar in the video game, a change in health of the avatar, detected speech, an environment condition encountered by the avatar, a transition between detectable states in the video game, one or more sounds in the video game, or any combinations thereof”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Doucet and Soelberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting an additional trigger event associated with the video game that necessitates an additional modification to the hit zone layout; and causing, in response to detecting the additional trigger event, the display screen device to modify the hit zone layout to an original layout of hit zones (Doucet, [0109], “In accordance with the position of the first character 532 and a game situation, the first image generation block 316 may enlarge or reduce part of the second game image and display a resultant image in the first character display area 530”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Doucet and Soelberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving input indicative of user interaction with the enlarged hit zone; receiving additional input indicative of additional user interaction with the reduced additional hit zone; modifying the gameplay in connection with the at least one of the plurality of video game control element based at least in part on the input; and modifying the gameplay in connection with another one of the plurality of video game control elements based at least in part on the additional input (Doucet, [0088], “If the throwing knife 508 hits one of the targets 502, the game control block 311 drops the hit target 502” and [0109], “In accordance with the position of the first character 532 and a game situation, the first image generation block 316 may enlarge or reduce part of the second game image and display a resultant image in the first character display area 530”).
Regarding claims 8-12 and 14, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 1-5 and 7.
Regarding claims 15-17, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 1-3.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doucet, in view of Soelberg, further in view of Miodunski [US20130084977].
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Doucet and Soelberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. However, the combination of Doucet and Soelberg does not explicitly disclose wherein causing the display screen device to reduce the additional hit zone within the hit zone layout comprises causing the display screen device to reduce a number of pixels included in the additional hit zone, wherein the number of pixels included in the additional hit zone is greater than zero after the reduction.
Nevertheless, Miodunski teaches reducing a number of pixels included in the area when the area is reduced ([0056], “Likewise, if the size of the cards is reduced, the number of pixels comprising the main card area 134 that are utilized to display the card images decreases (wherein the remaining pixels may be displayed as a blue background or the like)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by the combination of Doucet and Soelberg, to have the reduced number of pixels in the reduced additional hit zone, as taught by Miodunski, in order to be more efficient to deliver the game images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715