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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “An information processing system, comprising: processing circuitry configured to: store a skill related to an action in a virtual space; store a trigger condition associated with the skill, the trigger condition being related to an object in the virtual space; determine, in a case that the skill is associated with an avatar, whether the trigger condition is satisfied; and control, in a case that the trigger condition is determined to be satisfied, the avatar to perform the action based on the skill.” (Claim 1); “A non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an information processing system, cause the one or more processors to: store a skill related to an action in a virtual space; store a trigger condition associated with the skill, the trigger condition being related to an object in the virtual space; determine, in a case that the skill is associated with an avatar, whether the trigger condition is satisfied; and control, in a case that the trigger condition is determined to be satisfied, the avatar to perform the action based on the skill.” (Claim 20); “A method for processing information, executed by a computer, the method comprising: storing a skill related to an action in a virtual space; storing a trigger condition associated with the skill, the trigger condition being related to an object in the virtual space; determining, in a case that the skill is associated with an avatar, whether the trigger condition is satisfied; and controlling, in a case that the trigger condition is determined to be satisfied, the avatar to perform the action based on the skill.” (Claim 21); and “An information processing device, comprising: processing circuitry configured to: store a skill related to an action in a virtual space; store a trigger condition associated with the skill, the trigger condition being related to an object in the virtual space; determine, in a case that the skill is associated with an avatar, whether the trigger condition is satisfied; and control, in a case that the trigger condition is determined to be satisfied, the avatar to perform the action based on the skill.” (Claim 22). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Mental Processes particularly concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Acts to store a skill and store a triggering condition amount gathering of specific information; determining whether a triggering condition is satisfied amounts to analyzing the specific information; and controlling the avatar in response to the trigger condition being satisfied amount to displaying the result falling under the umbrella of mental processes (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. The recitations of utilization of a “system”, “processing circuitry”, “storage medium”, “computer”, and/or “device” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids system, medium, method, and/or device(s) to which a computer performs/implements the system, medium, method, and/or device(s). The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-19 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 17-19 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 17-19 recite the limitation "the target avatar" in lines 2-3 of Claim 17, lines 2-3 of Claim 18, and lines 3-5 of Claim 19; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamagishi (US 6,609,976).
Claims 1 and 20-22: Yamagishi discloses an information processing system/device (Col. 4:21-Col. 5:30), comprising: processing circuitry, via one or more processors thereof executing computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium (Col. 4:21-Col. 5:30), configured to (implement the method): store a skill (ability) related to an action (trick) in a virtual space; store a trigger condition associated with the skill, the trigger condition being related to an object in the virtual space (Col. 5:53-64, Col. 6:16-63, Col. 7:9-35); determine, in a case that the skill is associated with an avatar, whether the trigger condition is satisfied (Col. 6:16-63, Col. 7:9-35); and control, in a case that the trigger condition is determined to be satisfied, the avatar to perform the action based on the skill (Col. 8:21-Col. 9:65).
Claim 2: Yamagishi discloses wherein the trigger condition is related to a positional relationship between the object and the avatar (Col. 5:24-31, Col. 6:16-26, Col. 7:10-33).
Claim 3: Yamagishi discloses wherein the trigger condition is satisfied when a positional relationship between the object and a body part of the avatar becomes a particular relationship (Col. 5:24-31, Col. 6:16-26, Col. 7:10-33, Figs. 12a-c, as illustrated in at least Figs. 12a-c the avatar is a full body avatar having body parts, wherein according to the cited disclosure the trigger condition is satisfied when a positional relationship between the object and the avatar (includes body parts thereof) becomes a particular relationship).
Claim 5: Yamagishi discloses, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: store a plurality of skills including the skill (Fig. 4, Col. 6:27-37); and store a plurality of trigger conditions including the trigger condition such that one or more trigger conditions are associated with one skill of the plurality of skills (Col. 6:38-63, Col. 7:9-20).
Claim 6: Yamagishi discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire a user input associated with the avatar (Col. 7:65-Col. 8:43); and in a case that one common trigger condition associated with the plurality of skills is satisfied, control the avatar to perform an action based on one or more skills selected based on the user input from among the plurality of skills associated with the one common trigger condition (Col. 8:20-Col. 9:25, the common trigger being that the avatar be near the object and based on the ability of the avatar a skill is selected from among other skills/tricks).
Claim 7: Yamagishi discloses, wherein at least two of the plurality of trigger conditions are associated with one of the skills (Col. 8:20-Col. 9:25, such as the avatar being near the object and the avatar having a particular ability associated with it), and the at least two trigger conditions are related to different objects (Col. 8:20-Col. 9:25, for example the distances requirement applies to multiple objects such as wood box “a” and/or wood box “b”, and the avatar having a particular ability such as high jump is associated with only the wood box “a” object e.g. the at least two trigger conditions are related to different objects).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (US 6,609,976) in view of Kim (US 2020/0226811).
Claim 4: Yamagishi teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the object includes an item wearable by the avatar, and the trigger condition is satisfied when the avatar wears the item. Yamagishi at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (Col. 13:46-51). Furthermore, an analogous art of Kim teaches an information processing system (¶ 32-40, 59), wherein a virtual object that includes an item wearable by the avatar, wherein the trigger condition for the avatar to execute an action (motion type) is satisfied when the avatar wears the item (Fig. 8, Abstract, ¶ 89-104, 112, 117, 136-138). 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 the system, particularly the object and trigger condition, of Yamagishi with the wearable/trigger means of Kim because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of triggering of an avatar to perform an action based on the skill in which at least Yamagishi is intended (see above). Such a modification provides a means to more effectively generate the avatar (Kim - ¶ 7).
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamagishi (US 6,609,976) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamagishi (US 6,609,976) in view of Miyamoto (US 6,139,433).
Claims 8 and 14: Yamagishi discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: render an action in association with the skill; render the avatar performing the action based on the skill; and render the object and the avatar (Col. 4:58-65, Col. 5:24-31, Col. 5:52-Col. 6:63, Col. 8:34-Col. 13:25, Figs. 12-16e illustrates rendering the avatar performing the action based on the skill and rendering the object and the avatar). It is not clear, but implied that the rendering of Yamagishi is based on some form of stored data (It is understood that such data for rendering is to be stored and used to render/display performance of the action of the avatar on the object. As best understood the data includes the character ability data and/or trick object management data as disclosed in the cited portions above or any data that is inherent to and results in the render of the avatar performing the action as illustrated in Figs. 12-16e).
However, in the alternative, Yamagishi teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Miyamoto teaches a similar device wherein rendering of actions performed by objects (Col. 40:40-67, Fig. 27J) are implemented based on stored animation data (Col. 11:20-49, Col. 25:5-46). 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 the system of Yamagishi such that rendering occurs based on stored animation data as taught by Miyamoto because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of rendering objects/avatars in which at least Yamagishi is intended(Figs. 12a-16f and descriptions thereof). Such a modification provides a depth of realism within the gaming environment (Miyamoto – Col. 1:53-60, Col. 39:50-57).
Claim 9: Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto teaches the above, but fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire a user input associated with the avatar; render a body part of the avatar, based on the data, the body part being included in movable body parts of the avatar; and render at least one movable body part, other than the body part among the movable body parts, based on the user input. Yamagishi teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and acquiring a user input associated with the avatar to execute the action such as jump on (Fig. 8 and Col. 8:53-Col. 13:17). Additionally, Miyamoto teaches wherein the processing circuitry (Col. 7:25-Col. 8:65) is further configured to: acquire a user input associated with the avatar (Fig. Col. 40:40-67); render a body part of the avatar, based on the data (Col. 11:20-49, Col. 25:5-46), the body part being included in movable body parts of the avatar; and render at least one movable body part, other than the body part among the movable body parts, based on the user input (Col. 40:40-67, Fig. 27J in the example using the animation data and based on input from the user, both the legs, arms, and head move to perform an action such as jumping by the avatar). 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 the system of Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto with the rendering body parts means to perform an action as taught by Miyamoto because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of rendering an action of the avatar in which at least Yamagishi is intended (Figs. 12a-16f and descriptions thereof). Such a modification provides a depth of realism within the gaming environment (Miyamoto – Col. 1:53-60, Col. 39:50-57).
Claim 10: Yamashi in view of Miyamoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processing circuitry (Col. 7:25-Col. 8:65) is configured to render the body part and the object move in conjunction with each other. Additionally, Miyamoto teaches wherein the object is another avatar, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to render the body part and the object move in conjunction with each other (see above, Col. 40:26-32). 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 the system of Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto with the body part and the object moving in conjunction means of Miyamoto because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of rendering an action of the avatar in which at least Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto is intended (Figs. 12a-16f and descriptions thereof). Such a modification provides a depth of realism within the gaming environment (Miyamoto – Col. 1:53-60, Col. 39:50-57).
Claim 12: Miyamoto teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to be capable of rendering the body part based on the user input for at least a period when the action based on the skill is being performed (see above, Fig. 27J and description thereof).
Claim 15: Yamagishi teaches the data includes data sharable across a plurality of avatars including the avatar (Col. 4:58-65, Col. 5:24-31, Col. 5:52-Col. 6:63, Col. 8:34-Col. 13:25, As best understood the character ability data and/or trick object management data as disclosed in the cited portions above represent data sharable across a plurality of avatars including the avatar).
Claim 16: Yamagishi teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: store a plurality of skills including the skill; and store a plurality of types of data including the data in such a manner that one or more types of data are associated with one of the skills (Col. 4:58-65, Col. 5:24-31, Col. 5:52-Col. 6:63, Col. 8:34-Col. 13:25, the a plurality of skills including the skill are the abilities of the characters found in the character ability management table, wherein the plurality of types of data including the data in such a manner that one or more types of data are associated with one of the skills are the tricks of the trick object management table).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (US 6,609,976) in view of Miyamoto (US 6,139,433), and in further view of How to do Bowser Throws in Super Mario 64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1puQ3U16MLA ), herein Bowser.
Claim 11: Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to render another body part, different from the body part among the movable body parts of the avatar, to move in conjunction with a movement of the body part. At least Yamagishi teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Bowser teaches wherein the processing circuitry (gaming console Nintendo 64) is further configured to render another body part, different from the body part among the movable body parts of the avatar, to move in conjunction with a movement of the body part (time 0:29-1:27 illustrates that during the throwing/swinging action both arms move in conjunction with each other to perform the throwing/swinging action). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto with the movable body parts means of Bowser because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of rending an action of an avatar in which at least Yamagishi is intended (see above). Such a modification provides a depth of realism within the gaming environment.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (US 6,609,976) in view of Miyamoto (US 6,139,433), and in further view of Oyamada (US 7,593,014).
Claim 13: Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: store personality information related to a personality of a user associated with the avatar or a personality of the avatar; and render the avatar based on the data and the personality information of the avatar when the action based on the skill is being performed. Yamagishi at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and rendering of characters having at least different shapes and/or appearances (Figs. 13a-16e) and the combination of Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto teaches rendering of the avatar when the action based on the skill is being performed based on the data (see above). Furthermore, analogous art of Yamada, generally, teaches a similarly structured device, wherein the processing circuitry (Col. 9:45-Col. 10:30) stored personality information related to a personality of a user associated with the avatar or a personality of the avatar (shape/size data – Col. 4:1-26, Col. 12:45-62), wherein rendering of the avatar performing an action includes the data (motion/animation data – Col. 12:63-Col. 13:15) and personality information of the avatar (abstract, Col. 4:1-26). 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 the system of Yamagishi in view of Miyamoto with the additional personality for rendering of the avatar performing an action as taught by Oyamada because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of rendering of an avatar performing an action in which at least Yamagishi is intended. Such a modification enhances the enjoyment of the game system through improved game simulation (Col. 22:65-Col. 23:3).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (US 6,609,976) in view of Shadow Hearts PS2 Gamplay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zvc-MAGRh4 ), herein Shadow.
Claim 17: Yamagishi teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, in a case that the target avatar performs the action based on the skill, change a field of view of another avatar located around the target avatar, based on position information of the target avatar. At least Yamagishi teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above); the avatar performing the action based on the skill on the object when the avatar is near the object (Col. 6:16-27); and that the avatar includes a plurality of avatars or party of avatars controlled by a user of the processing circuitry (Col. 2:5-12, Col. 7:65-Col. 8:12, Col. 9:14-25, Claim 1). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shadow teaches wherein the processing circuitry (gaming console PS2) is further configured to in a case that the target avatar performs the action based on the skill, change a field of view of another avatar located around the target avatar, based on position information of the target avatar (time 1:20-4:00 illustrates rendering of a party of avatars having corresponding skill and render actions including a target avatar “Yuri” performing an action based on a skill, wherein the field of view of another avatar located around the target avatar (“Alice” or “Zhuzhen”) changes, based on position information of the target avatar “Yuri” such that the target avatar is in the field of view of the other avatar, emphasis on time 2:25-2:40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, particularly, in regards to how the target avatar in relation to the other avatars of the party are rendered/displayed, of Yamagishi with field of view teachings of Shadow to provide emphasis on the use of the plurality of avatars or party of avatars of at least Yamagishi (see above). Such a modification would provide emphasis on the availability of the party for use in the game; thereby, making the game more user friendly.
Claim 18: Yamagishi in view of Shadow teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to change the field of view of the other avatar such that the target avatar is in the field of view of the other avatar (time 1:20-4:00 illustrates rendering of a party of avatars having corresponding skill and render actions including a target avatar “Yuri” performing an action based on a skill, wherein the field of view of another avatar located around the target avatar (“Alice” or “Zhuzhen”) changes, based on position information of the target avatar “Yuri” such that the target avatar is in the field of view of the other avatar, emphasis on time 2:25-2:40).
Claim 19: Yamagishi teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to change a field of view of the target avatar such that another avatar located around the target avatar is in the field of view of the target avatar when the other avatar performs an action related to the action based on the skill performed by the target avatar. At least Yamagishi teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above); the avatar performing the action based on the skill on the object when the avatar is near the object (Col. 6:16-27); and that the avatar includes a plurality of avatars or party of avatars controlled by a user of the processing circuitry (Col. 2:5-12, Col. 7:65-Col. 8:12, Col. 9:14-25, Claim 1). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shadow teaches wherein the processing circuitry (gaming console PS2) is further configured to change a field of view of the target avatar such that another avatar located around the target avatar is in the field of view of the target avatar when the other avatar performs an action related to the action based on the skill performed by the target avatar. (time 1:20-4:00 illustrates rendering of a party of avatars having corresponding skill and render actions wherein a field of view of the target avatar “Yuri” is changed such that another avatar (“Alice”) located around the target avatar is in the field of view of the target avatar when the other avatar performs an action related to the action based on the skill performed by the target avatar “Yuri”, emphasis on time 2:25-2:40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, particularly, in regards to how the target avatar in relation to the other avatars of the party are rendered/displayed, of Yamagishi with field of view teachings of Shadow to provide emphasis on the use of the plurality of avatars or party of avatars of at least Yamagishi (see above). Such a modification would provide emphasis on the availability of the party for use in the game; thereby, making the game more user friendly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights