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 Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 28 is dependent on claim 20 which appears to be a typo. For purposes of examination, Examiner will treat claim 28 as dependent on claim 27. Appropriate correction is required.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (as shown by NPL document: “How to Use Vehicles”, hereinafter referred to as Call of Duty) in view of Pollatsek (US 2008/0125224 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, Call of Duty discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute game processing comprising:
controlling a movement of a movable dynamic object placed in a virtual space (see pg. 3, 2nd par., Once on the ATV, you can accelerate by pressing RT on Xbox One or R2 on PS4. Todecelerate, use LT and L2);
based on an operation input, controlling a movement of a player character in the virtual space (see pg. 3, 2nd par., To use an ATV in Modern Warfare, enter it (or rather, get on) by pressing Square on PS4 or X on Xbox One);
making a contact determination regarding a down direction of the player character (see pg. 3, 2nd par., To use an ATV in Modern Warfare, enter it (or rather, get on) by pressing Square on PS4 or X on Xbox One; also see figure on pg. 3, shows the player character on top of the ATV); and
if the player character is in contact with the dynamic object in the down direction, adding the movement of the dynamic object in contact with the player character in the down direction to the movement of the player character (see pg. 3, 2nd par., To use an ATV in Modern Warfare, enter it (or rather, get on) by pressing Square on PS4 or X on Xbox One; also see figure on pg. 3, shows the player character on top of the ATV; thus if the player character is riding the ATV, they both move together).
Though Call of Duty discloses controlling a movement of a movable dynamic object placed in a virtual space, Call of Duty does not explicitly disclose controlling a movement of a movable dynamic object placed in a virtual space based on physical calculations.
Pollatsek teaches a method and apparatus for controlling in flight objects in a virtual space by sensing rotation of a handheld controller (see par. [0066], Using the conventional terminology of “pitch,” “yaw” and “roll” where pitch refers to rotation about the X axis, yaw refers to rotation about the Y axis and roll refers to rotation about the Z axis (see FIG. 6A), when game player P uses both hands to change the roll of the hand-held controller 107, the simulated vehicle 502 steers. Thus, for example, if the game player P moves his or her hands such that the left hand moves downwards and the right hand moves upwards (with each hand holding an end of the remote 107), the simulated truck 502 steers to the left. Similarly, if the game player P moves his hands so that the right hand moves downwards and the left hand moves upwards, the simulated truck 502 steers to the right). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Call of Duty to control objects based on physical calculations as taught by Pollatsek as this is merely substituting one type of input control (buttons/d-pad) for another (tilt/pitch/yaw/roll) to produce the similar and predictable result of controlling the object’s movement.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (as shown by NPL document: “How to Use Vehicles”, hereinafter referred to as Call of Duty) in view of Pollatsek (US 2008/0125224 A1) and further in view of Galaga (as shown by NPL document: “DUAL FIGHTER TROPHY IN ARCADE GAME SERIES: GALAGA”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, and 23, the combination of Call of Duty and Pollatsek teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media as discussed above. However, the combination of Call of Duty and Pollatsek does not explicitly disclose wherein the game processing further comprises forming an assembly object by linking a plurality of the dynamic objects based on an operation input.
Galaga teaches a shooting game wherein the game processing further comprises forming an assembly object by linking a plurality of the dynamic objects based on an operation input (see pg. 1, 1st par., Now shoot the Boss Galaga that has your former fighter over its head and when dies, your old fighter will drop down and attach itself to the fighter you are currently operating thus forming a Dual fighter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the game processing of Call of Duty and Pollatsek with the assembly object of Galaga in order to create a modified object with additional or different features or functionality for enhanced gameplay.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, and 24, Call of Duty discloses wherein the dynamic object includes a propulsive object that has an operating state and a non-operating state and generates a propulsive force in the operating state, and the game processing further comprises, if the assembly object includes the propulsive object in the operating state, controlling a movement of the assembly object based on the propulsive force (see pg. 3, 2nd par., Once on the ATV, you can accelerate by pulling RT on Xbox One or by pressing R2 on PS4. To decelerate, use LT and L2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11-14, 18-21, and 25-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest wherein the dynamic object includes a special behavior object that has a first state and a second state and makes a predetermined motion in accordance with a change from the first state to the second state, and the game processing further comprises, if the assembly object includes the special behavior object, during a predetermined period when the special behavior object is making the predetermined motion, not performing a process of adding the movement of the dynamic object included in the assembly object and in contact with the player character in the down direction to the movement of the player character, and performing a process of adding a second movement of the player character calculated based on physical calculations associated with contact between the dynamic object in contact with the player character in the down direction and the player character to the movement of the player character; wherein the dynamic object includes a special behavior object that has a first state and a second state and makes a predetermined motion in accordance with a change from the first state to the second state, and the game processing further comprises, if the dynamic object in contact with the player character in the down direction is the special behavior object, during a predetermined period when the special behavior object is making the predetermined motion, not performing a process of adding the movement of the dynamic object in contact with the player character in the down direction to the movement of the player character, and performing a process of adding a second movement of the player character calculated based on physical calculations associated with contact between the dynamic object in contact with the player character in the down direction and the player character to the movement of the player character; and wherein the game processing further comprises: based on an operation input, causing the player character to perform an object operation action at least including a first operation of moving a specified dynamic object and a second operation of forming an assembly object by linking the specified dynamic object to the other dynamic object; and if the assembly object including the dynamic object specified based on the object operation action includes the dynamic object in contact with the player character in the down direction, controlling the dynamic object not to move based on the first operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimizu et al. (US 6,908,388 B2), Shikata et al. (US 2012/0302338 A1), Mondesir et al. (US 2008/0096654 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM 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, 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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 2/2/2026