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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner withdraws the species restriction requirement filed on 4/22/2026 due to persuasive arguments filed on 06/22/2026. All claims have been rejoined. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under prosecution.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: imaging device in claims 8 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 8 and 17 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim limitation “imaging device” found in claims 8 and 17 in line 3 of each of the claims is not described in the instant application’s Specification. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear what an imaging device is with respect to each of the claims. The Specification does not further define an imaging device. Therefore, it is unclear what the structural definition of an imaging device is with respect to the claim.
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 8 and 17 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.
Claim limitation “imaging device” found in claims 8 and 17 in line 3 of each of the claims invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear what an imaging device is with respect to each of the claims. The Specification does not further define an imaging device. Therefore, it is unclear what the structural definition of an imaging device is with respect to the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claims to use clear and concise language. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will apply any device that generates or takes an image to read on the claim limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juan Arevalo Baeza (US 20060046854 A1; hereinafter Baeza) in view of Victor Octav Suba Miura (US 9364743 B2; hereinafter Miura)
Regarding claim 1, Baeza discloses a game development support system comprising at least a game apparatus capable of executing an under-development game program and an information processing apparatus, wherein the under-development game program causes a computer of the game apparatus (recited in at least: Baeza [Abstract]) to execute: outputting a log during execution of game processing, the log including timing information (“Log files 306, which are created for each gaming session, have certain requirements in one embodiment. Each log file 306 is given a unique name based on the game console name and the time and date that the file was created” (recited in at least: Baeza paragraph [0035])); and generating, within at least a predetermined period during execution of the game processing, a game image so that an identification image by which a timing that the game image is output is identifiable is included therein (“each log file 306 contains a header consisting of the game name, build name (includes build number and name identifying where the data was collected—e.g., playtest, deep game play), game console name, IP (Internet Protocol) address (if the game console is networked over the Internet), and time stamp” (recited in at least: Baeza paragraph [0035])); wherein the information processing apparatus is caused to execute: acquiring the log from the game apparatus; acquiring video data that is generated by capturing the game image; performing image analysis to the video data so as to specify a frame in which the identification image is included in the video, and to specify a timing that the game image in which the identification image is included is output (“Each log file 306 also contains a write log value, which refers to an action or event, with the coordinate location of the event and time stamp, including but not limited to all button presses, objects picked up/dropped, avatar/character death, health increase/decrease, level/skill increase or decrease, and others as defined by a game development team” (recited in at least: Baeza paragraph [0035]). However, Baeza doesn’t explicitly disclose generating, based on specified timing and the timing information included in the log, a viewing image that includes at least the log and the video that are displayed synchronously.
Miura teaches generating, based on specified timing and the timing information included in the log, a viewing image that includes at least the log and the video that are displayed synchronously. (“As the user plays through a given scene, a gameplay timeline of that scene can be recorded, including recorded video of the user's gameplay as well a recorded input data and game states of the executed game application” (recited in at least: Miura [column 11, lines 29-33])).
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 generating a video of the gameplay with information on the screen as taught by Miura into the system of Baeza for the added benefit of allowing game developers to have information needed to keep logs and data organized while debugging or thinking of new ways to generate new gameplay for users that is engaging and preferred by the users.
Regarding claim 2, and similarly claim 11, Baeza in view of Miura teaches the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Baeza further discloses wherein the identification image includes an image of information indicating a timing that the game image is being output, the image being located at a predetermined position in the game image (“the controller routine 302 may be adapted to record function calls. Function calls are those actions triggered either by the user or automatically by the game software that causes the game to perform some action. For example, function calls typically identify events in a game. These function calls can be output to the log files 306” (recited in at least: Baeza paragraph [0033])).
Regarding claim 3, and similarly claim 12, Baeza in view of Miura teaches the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Miura further teaches wherein the identification image includes an image of character information that indicates a number of frames at a game start or from a predetermined timing after the game start (“Additionally, a number of candidate frames 440, 442, 444, and 446 are presented, from which the user may select one to be utilized as a representative frame for the minigame. The candidate frames can be determined according to a variety of methods. For example, candidate frames may be presented from fractional intervals of the selected portion of the gameplay timeline. The intervals can be equivalent, such that the candidate frames are equally spaced along the gameplay timeline, or the intervals may be non-equivalent, such that some frames are more proximate to each other than others along the gameplay timeline” (recited in at least: Miura [column 12 lines 54-65])).
Regarding claim 4, and similarly claim 13, Baeza in view of Miura teaches the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Miura further teaches wherein the identification image includes an image of information that is located at a predetermined position of the game image at a predetermined timing after a game start, wherein the under-development game program causes the computer of the game apparatus to further execute outputting information that indicates a first timing that the image of information is located at the predetermined position of the game image (“analyzes the game state of the recorded selection 610. Based on the analysis of the game state of the recorded selection, a game breakpoint processor determines appropriate breakpoints to define the beginning and ending of the game slice. Breakpoints can be defined based on geography, time, task or goal accomplishment, scene boundaries (physical or temporal), or any other aspect of a video game according to which the video game's gameplay can be segmented to generate a game slice. A brief description of some illustrative embodiments will serve to highlight certain possibilities for breakpoint determination” (recited in at least: Miura [column 14 lines 44-55])).
Regarding claim 5, and similarly claim 14, Baeza in view of Miura teaches the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Miura further teaches wherein the identification image includes a pattern image of a predetermined color (“a live view can be highlighted when the current user navigates to it and may be rendered in a manner distinct from other live views. For example, live views might be displayed in a desaturated color scheme by default but be displayed in a fully saturated color scheme when highlighted or selected” (recited in at least: Miura [column 21 lines 28-33])).
Regarding claim 6, and similarly claim 15, Baeza in view of Miura teaches the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Miura further teaches wherein the game apparatus generates the video data by capturing the game image, and the information processing apparatus receives the video data from the game apparatus (“the client primarily functioning to receive and communicate user inputs, and receive video/audio data for rendering” (recited in at least: Miura [column 6, lines 26-28])).
Regarding claim 7, and similarly claim 16, Baeza in view of Miura teaches the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Miura further teaches wherein the information processing apparatus generates the video data by capturing the game image (“ The cloud gaming servers 104 execute the various video games which are being played by the users, defining a given video game's game state from moment to moment, and sending video data (including image data and audio data) to a computing device at a particular location. The computing device at a given location processes input from the user(s) playing the video game, and transmits input data to the cloud gaming server, which in turn processes the input data to affect the game state of the video game.” (recited in at least: Miura [column 6, lines 57-67])).
Regarding claim 8, and similarly claim 17, Baeza in view of Miura teaches the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Miura further teaches wherein the information processing apparatus acquires video data that the game image displayed a display device is imaged by an imaging device (“the client 204 can include a camera for tracking a controller device or an object located on the controller device. As has been noted, the object can be illuminated to further facilitate tracking based on analysis of captured image frames from the camera” (recited in at least: Miura [column 7, lines 27-31])).
Regarding claim 9, and similarly claim 18, Baeza in view of Miura teaches the claimed subject matter as stated above, and Baeza further discloses detecting that a predetermined error occurs during execution of the game processing; generating the game image that includes the identification image when the predetermined error is detected; and transmitting video data of a predetermined time period that includes at least a timing that the game image including the identification image is generated in response to occurrence of the predetermined error to the information processing apparatus (“User feedback that is driven by events within the game allows game developers to utilize objective data to improve user experience. For instance, if there is a particular level within a game that many users are failing, game developers can retrieve event log files from the database that can objectively indicate, for instance, that a certain percentage of users failed on a particular level of a game. This objective data, gathered from log files, can be used to analyze where in the game that users are getting frustrated and to improve the design in that particular area of the game. Data gathered from both the event log files and the survey log files can be combined to provide a more thorough view of the user's experience to the game developers” (recited in at least: Baeza paragraph [0047])).
Regarding claim 10, Baeza discloses a game development support method of a game development support system that comprises at least a game apparatus capable of executing an under-development game program and an information processing apparatus capable of an information processing program (recited in at least: Baeza [Abstract]), wherein the under-development game program causes a computer of the game apparatus to execute: steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Baeza discloses an information processing apparatus including one or more processors (recited in at least: Baeza paragraphs [0021-0022]) caused to execute: steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Baeza discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (“these computer-executable instructions can be stored on a computer-readable medium” (recited in at least: Baeza paragraph [0015])) having stored with an information processing program executable by an information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, wherein the information processing program causes the one or more processors of the information processing apparatus to execute (“In one aspect of this embodiment, the game console 102 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 200 and a memory controller 202. The memory controller 202 can facilitate processor access to various types of memory” (recited in at least: Baeza paragraph [0022])): steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Conclusion
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