Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/491,497

SYSTEM FOR RENDERING SKIN TONE WITHIN A GAME APPLICATION ENVIRONMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 20, 2023
Examiner
HENRY, THOMAS HAYNES
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Electronic Arts Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
261 granted / 519 resolved
-19.7% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
548
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§103
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 519 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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. Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the second priority value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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) 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 20210192838). In claims 1, 10, and 19, Liu discloses Executing a game application comprising a virtual environment, the virtual environment comprising a plurality of virtual entities (Although the details of the particulars of the game of Liu is sparse, paragraph 32 discloses a client playing a virtual game. paragraph 53 discloses a virtual camera rendering pictures in the game, which shows that there is a virtual environment paragraph 75 discloses a world space, which further shows a virtual environment paragraph 3 discloses different game characters within the game) Determining simulation data associated with runtime of the game application based at least on part on gameplay information associated with a gameplay state of the game application (Again, although the details of the particulars of the game are sparse, paragraph 32 discloses a client playing a virtual game, the BRI of “simulation data” and “gameplay information associated with a gameplay state of the game application” would simply be a player playing the game, and paragraph 53 discloses a virtual camera rendering pictures in the game, and these pictures would be the gameplay state of the game application) Identifying a first virtual entity based at least on part on the simulation data within a game scene, wherein the first virtual entity is associated with a first dynamic lighting characteristic (paragraph 40, the first virtual entity would be the character with relatively high curvature, with the lighting characteristic of black to red to white) Identifying a first dynamic light source associated with the game scene (paragraph 36 discloses that the diffuse may is shown when the object is illuminated by light. This would be the dynamic light source with the game scene) Modifying at least one parameter of the first dynamic light source based at least in part on the first dynamic lighting characteristic, wherein the modification of the at least one parameter changes light incident on the first virtual entity within the game scene and (paragraph 41, the light source is modified according to the pre-integration simulation module) Rendering the at least one virtual entity within the game scene based at least in part on the first dynamic light source (paragraphs 41-48 discloses rendering the pre integration map from paragraph 40) In claims 2 and 11, Liu discloses at least one parameter of the dynamic light source is a light intensity (paragraph 36) In claims 3 and 12, Liu discloses the game scene includes a second virtual entity is associated with a second dynamic lighting characteristic (paragraph 40, the second virtual entity would be the character with relatively low curvature, which has a second dynamic lighting characteristic of black to white) In claims 4 and 13, Liu discloses the first virtual entity is associated with a first priority value and the second virtual entity is associated with a first priority value wherein the method comprises determining that the first priority value is greater than the second priority value and modifying the at least one parameter of the first dynamic light source based on the first dynamic lighting characteristic (as best understood by examiner these priority values serve no purpose and have no bearing upon any action performed by the device within the game, and are effectively two arbitrary numbers with one number being higher than the other. The “priority” of the prior art is being taught under BRI of the curvature, where the high curvature first entity has a higher “priority” (curvature) than the second. The parameter of the first dynamic lighting source is already taught to be modified by the first dynamic lighting characteristic as required by claim 1) In claims 5 and 14, Liu discloses modifying at least one parameter of second dynamic light source based at least on part on the second dynamic lighting characteristic (paragraphs 40-48, there may be multiple light sources and each of them are modified by the lighting characteristics of the pre integration map) In claims 7 and 16, Liu discloses the first dynamic characteristic is determined based on a skin coloring of a skin texture of the first virtual entity (paragraph 40) In claims 8 and 17, Liu discloses rendering the at least one virtual entity within the game scene is based at least in part on the light incident on the skin texture of the first virtual entity within the game scene (paragraph 40) In claims 9 and 18, Liu discloses rendering the at least one virtual entity within the game scene is based at least in part on a smoothness characteristic, and subsurface scattering (paragraph 40), and a melanin mask associated with the skin texture of the first virtual entity, wherein the smoothness characteristic, the subsurface scattering, and the melanin mask are determined based on the skin coloring of the first virtual entity (paragraph 40. With respect to melanin mask, paragraph 3 discloses relying upon the translucency feature of skin, wherein higher levels of melanin result in lower translucency) 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) 6, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu. In claims 6, 15, and 20, Liu discloses a light source which is not modified by the first dynamic lighting characteristic (paragraph 3 disclsoes “most easily computed illumination models are based on surface reflection without light ansorption or penetration”). However this is within the background of the invention describing prior art. Liu fails to disclose a plurality of lights, some which are modified by the first lighting characteristic, and others which are not as described in the background, however one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of combining the teaching of Liu with the teaching of Liu’s background teaching in order to provide a game which both has the dynamic lighting described by Liu as well as the other light sources which do not modify by the first dynamic lighting characteristic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Liu by the light sources described in the background of Liu in order to allow for more easily computed illumination models to reduce processing power. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6. 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. /THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 20, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599839
DELIVERY OF VIRTUAL EFFECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599841
CHAT-BASED USER-GENERATED CONTENT ASSISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597320
WAGER SHARING AND INVITATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12528021
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION IN A RACING EVENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12521636
Platform for Enhanced Chance-Based Games with Fixed Odds Payouts
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+38.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 519 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month