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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 20, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0108984 to Stafford et al. (hereinafter Stafford).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, Stafford teaches a game system (e.g., device 600 being a computer, server, etc. having a CPU and memory in ¶¶ 58-60), apparatus, method therefor, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute game processing comprising:
executing movement control on at least one movable, dynamic object (e.g., game assets such as objects, characters, etc. in ¶ 52) in a virtual space based on physical calculation (e.g., a physics simulation, game calculation, etc. in ¶ 29);
generating at least one explosion with timing based on a game process (e.g., explosion or a bomb blast 350 of a bomb applying a plurality of forces 355, wherein objects in the first sub-group are affected by the bomb blast 350 in ¶¶ 44-45); and
when the at least one explosion occurs, calculating a location and orientation of a target object present within a range from an occurrence position where each explosion occurs, based on physical calculation, assuming that a position on the target object closest to the occurrence position is an impact position (e.g., a collision based interaction radius, or blast radius in ¶¶ 47-48), and if the target object is the dynamic object, a point having a first mass hits the target object at the impact position at a first speed in a direction from the occurrence position toward the impact position (see at least Fig. 3C and ¶¶ 43-44).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, and 27, Stafford teaches wherein the target object is all objects that are at least partially included within a distance from the explosion occurrence position (e.g., objects within the collision based interaction radius, or blast radius in ¶¶ 47-48).
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 7, 14, 21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford.
Regarding claims 7, 14, 21, and 28, Stafford teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching wherein at least one of the first mass and the first speed is set to a value that decreases with an increase in a distance between the occurrence position and the impact position. Regardless, Stafford makes clear that the invention uses physics simulations and calculations to model the interactions of an explosion/collision. For instance, in the explosion example of Fig. 3C, the discrete objects in the outer shell 340 may individually be rendered through the graphics pipeline and shown flying away from the pile of objects in different directions 345, as described in ¶ 44. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the teachings of Stafford to include the claimed at least one of mass and speed set to a value that decreases with distance in order to more accurately depict the real-world physics that would occur in a real explosion/collision.
Claims 5, 12, 19, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford in view of Moment of inertia (hereinafter Wikipedia).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, and 26, Stafford teaches the invention substantially as described above, but lacks in explicitly teaching when the explosion occurs, temporarily increasing the moment of inertia tensor of the target object before executing the physical calculation. In a related disclosure, Wikipedia teaches that: (a) for the same object, different axes of rotation will have different moments of inertia about those axes; (b) in general, the moments of inertia are not equal unless the object is symmetric about all axes; and (c) the moment of inertia tensor is a convenient way to summarize all moments of inertia of an object with one quantity. Wikipedia, 23. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Stafford to employ a moment of inertia tensor in order to conveniently summarize all moments of inertia of an object with one quantity, as beneficially taught by Wikipedia, and to temporarily increase the moment of inertia tensor in order to temporarily slow the collision/explosion such that the player can understand how the interaction occurred.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, 16-18, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford in view of Just Cause 3: MEGA ROCKET BOOST! (hereinafter Just Cause).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, and 23, Stafford teaches the invention substantially as described above, including wherein the dynamic object includes a bomb object, and generating the explosion at a location of the bomb object with timing specified based on an operation input (e.g., explosion or a bomb blast 350 of a bomb applying a plurality of forces 355, wherein objects in the first sub-group are affected by the bomb blast 350 in ¶¶ 44-45). Stafford lacks in explicitly teaching joining at least one of the bomb objects to at least one of the dynamic objects in the virtual space based on an operation input to obtain an assembly object, which is a dynamic object, and executing movement control on the assembly object based on the physical calculation.
In a related disclosure, Just Cause teaches the ability to join one or more explosives (e.g., rockets or explosives at 1:01) to an assembly object (e.g., a vehicle such as a red car at 0:53), which is a dynamic object, and executing movement control on the assembly object based on the physical calculation (e.g., causing the land vehicle to fly at 1:45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to modify the system of Stafford to allow explosives to be attached to other objects such as vehicles, as taught by Just Cause, in order to increase the entertainment value of the game.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, and 24, Stafford in view of Just Cause teaches or suggests wherein the bomb object explodes after a period of time has passed since performance of an operation input of commanding to explode (e.g., a brief delay occurs between detonation and explosion at approximately 1:45-1:47).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, and 25, Stafford in view of Just Cause teaches or suggests wherein controlling a player character in the virtual space based on an operation input (e.g., controlling the main character), and the operation input of commanding to explode is to cause the player character to perform an action on the bomb object or the assembly object including the bomb object, based on an operation input (e.g., the character presses a trigger on a remote at approximately 1:45, which is a result of the human player pressing the Q button discussed at 2:42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715