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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 04/03/2026 and entered with the RCE riled on 05/04/2026. Presently, claims 1 and 3-13 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 02/06/2026. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s representative alleges the following:
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, “Toyama makes no mention of ‘live-report,’ let alone a live-report that is in response to a game-status condition being satisfied, as required by amended independent claim 1. Additionally, Toyama fails to make any mention of presenting a live-report that includes sound information or caption information that is presented by a game medium within the computer game, nor a live-report that is based on game production information that provides commentary by a game medium in a computer game, as required by amended independent claim 1.” (Page 15 of Remarks).
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, “Toyama also fails to make any mention of obtaining game-status information during an execution of a computer game that describes one or more game media participating in the computer game, let alone determining whether a game-status condition is satisfied that indicates a game development has occurred in the computer game, as required by amended independent claim 1.” (Page 15 of Remarks).
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, “Toyama fails to disclose or suggest, inter alia, ‘presenting, within a graphical user interface on a display device, a computer game’ and ‘obtaining game-status information during an execution of the computer game, wherein the game-status information describes one or more game media participating in the computer game’ and ‘determining whether a game-status condition is satisfied that indicates a game development has occurred in the computer game based on the game-status information of the computer game’ (emphasis added), as recited in amended independent claim 1.” (Page 16 of Remarks).
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, “Toyama also fails to disclose or suggest, inter alia, ‘determining action-related information serving as information related to an action of any of the one or more game media based on the game-status condition being satisfied’ and ‘presenting, within the graphical user interface on the display device, a motion change of a first game medium within the computer game based on the action-related information and in response to the game-status condition being satisfied’ (emphasis added) as recited in amended independent claim 1.” (Page 16 of Remarks).
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, “Toyama also fails to disclose or suggest, inter alia, ‘determining, in response to the game-status condition being satisfied, game production information that provides commentary by a second game medium in the computer game’ and ‘presenting, within the computer game, a live-report using the game production information and in response to the game-status information being satisfied, wherein the live-report comprises sound information or caption information that is presented by the second game medium within the computer game’ (emphasis added) as recited in amended independent claim 1.” (Page 16 of Remarks).
Regarding point (1), the examiner notes that Toyama is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
In response to the arguments above, the office action relies on newly found prior art of Rival Stars as evidenced by "Rival Stars Horse Racing Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) - Part 1"(hereinafter Rival Stars) (See 102 Rejection below).
Regarding point (2), the examiner notes that Toyama is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
In response to the arguments above, the office action relies on newly found prior art of Rival Stars as evidenced by "Rival Stars Horse Racing Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) - Part 1"(hereinafter Rival Stars) to disclose these features. (See 102 Rejection below).
Regarding point (3), the examiner notes that Toyama is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
In response to the arguments above, the office action relies on newly found prior art of Rival Stars as evidenced by "Rival Stars Horse Racing Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) - Part 1"(hereinafter Rival Stars) to disclose these features. (See 102 Rejection below).
Regarding point (4), the examiner notes that Toyama is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
In response to the arguments above, the office action relies on newly found prior art of Rival Stars as evidenced by "Rival Stars Horse Racing Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) - Part 1"(hereinafter Rival Stars) to disclose these features. (See 102 Rejection below).
Regarding point (5), the examiner notes that Toyama is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
In response to the arguments above, the office action relies on newly found prior art of Rival Stars as evidenced by "Rival Stars Horse Racing Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) - Part 1"(hereinafter Rival Stars) to disclose these features. (See 102 Rejection below).
Regarding claims 9-11, since they recite similar features to claim 1, they will be rejected with the newly found prior art as stated above. Therefore, the rejection is maintained as present below.
Applicant’s representative argues that since the references do not disclose the suggested features of claim 1 and so, dependent claims are patentable. However, in light of the remarks and standing rejection below, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all the elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rival Stars as evidenced by "Rival Stars Horse Racing Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) - Part 1" (hereinafter Rival Stars).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-11, Rival Stars discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program (game played on android phone and android phones inherently have this), the program causing a computer to perform a method comprising presenting, within a graphical user interface on a display device, a computer game (android phone has a display and the user can interact with it; 3:02-3:05); obtaining game-status information during an execution of the computer game, wherein the game-status information describes one or more game media participating in the computer game (information describing one or more media participating in the computer game; 2:54-4:02); determining whether a game-status condition is satisfied that indicates a game development has occurred in the computer game based on the game-status information of the computer game (entering the gate qualifies as a game status condition here; 2:54); determining action-related information serving as information related to an action of any of the one or more game media based on the game-status condition being satisfied (tapping the screen to start; 2:54-2:57); presenting, within the graphical user interface on the display device, a motion change of a first game medium within the computer game based on the action-related information and in response to the game-status condition being satisfied (motion changed from stationary to moving by tapping the screen start; 2:54-2:57); determining, in response to the game-status condition being satisfied, game production information that provides commentary by a second game medium in the computer game (live commentary of all mediums participating in the game; 2:57-4:02); and presenting, within the computer game, a live-report using the game production information and in response to the game-status information being satisfied (the commentary is a live-report of the race; 2:57-4:02), wherein the live-report comprises sound information or caption information that is presented by the second game medium within the computer game (the live-report is audible sound information; 2:57-4:02). Regarding additional limitations of claim 11, Rival Stars discloses an electronic device and a server connected to the electronic device via a network (Rival Stars has multiple features such as user accounts, authentication, live events, leaderboards, etc. and these features will require the connection to a server through a network).
Regarding claim 3, Rival Stars discloses wherein the game-status information includes location information of said one or more game media in a virtual space of the computer game per unit time (you can see the location information by how many meters away is the horse from the goal in the top left side, and is calculated per unit time as the horse keeps moving towards the goal; 3:30-4:01).
Regarding claim 4, Rival Stars discloses wherein the method further comprises determining a place of said one or more game media during a progression of the computer game based on the game-status information (order of the horses shown in 2:58-3:05).
Regarding claim 5, Rival Stars discloses wherein the action-related information on said any of the one or more game media includes motion change information on said any of the one or more game media, expression change information thereon, texture change information thereon, or a combination of at least two of these pieces of information (motion change information is shown throughout the whole race; 2:54-4:02).
Regarding claim 6, Rival Stars discloses the method further comprises drawing said any of the one or more game media associated with the game production information, on a game screen of the graphical user interface based on virtual-camera information including location information (all horses being shown in the screen, which includes the location of the main horse in relation to the other horses on the top left side; 2:57-3:03) and an orientation of a virtual camera in a virtual space of the computer game (virtual camera here has different orientations as shown in 3:02-3:05), with said any of the one or more game media used as a reference (the main player is the one used as a reference as shown in 3:02-3:05).
Regarding claim 12, Rival Stars discloses wherein the game-status condition is selected from a group consisting of a condition that a third game medium is in a specific status during the computer game, a condition that the third game medium has exercised a skill, a condition that the third game medium was affected by a skill of a fourth game medium; a condition that the third game medium is in a specific state, a condition that a parameter of the third game medium becomes a predetermined value, a condition that a parameter indicating a type of a game field becomes a predetermined value, and a condition that a reuse-prohibited flag is not set for the game production information (all players are in a specific status of entering the gate in 2:54-2:58 or all game mediums have the ability to exercise a skill such as slow or sprint as shown on the screen throughout the race in 2:58-4:02 or if a medium performs a skill, such as slow down or sprint, other mediums will be affected by getting passed or passing the player who used the skill; 2:58-4:02).
Regarding claim 13, Rival Stars discloses wherein the motion change of the first game medium is a glance motion (there are glance motions all over the race, such as turning their heads, turning their bodies, trailing another medium, etc.; 2:58-4:02).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rival Stars in view of Hiroyuki Nakayama (US 2003/0139209 A1; hereinafter Nakayama).
Regarding claim 7, Rival Stars does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises processing different types of game production information indicating a game development in series over time and not concurrently.
However, Nakayama teaches the method further comprises processing different types of game production information indicating a game development (audio for normal commentary mode and audio for specific horse commentary mode are 2 different types of game production; Fig 6 and 7) in series over time and not concurrently (each commentary voice line indicates development of the race over time and not concurrently because they are not happening at the same time; Fig 6 and 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rival Stars to implement the teachings of Nakayama for the benefit of understanding the status or progress of the current gameplay. In this case the commentary audio follows the gameplay step by step and discloses what is happening, which allows users or spectators to understand all the details regarding the current game status.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rival Stars in view of Kazuhiro Kusuda (US 20020013175 A1; hereinafter Kusuda).
Regarding claim 8, Rival Stars does disclose communication to a server through a network for certain inherent aspects of the game such as user accounts, authentication, live events, and leaderboards. But Rival Stars does not explicitly disclose the game-status information includes game-status information for one game that is generated in a server (web server manages the horse racing game; ¶127).
However, Kasuda teaches the game-status information includes game-status information for one game that is generated in a server (web server manages the horse racing game, which includes the aspects of game status information; ¶127).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rival Stars to implement the teachings of Kasuda for the benefit of anchoring or storing the game status information to a server. By doing this the progress or development of the game will be available to the user even if they use a different device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights