DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to the application and the preliminary amendment filed on 1 December 2023 and the preliminary amendment filed on 18 February 2024.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1-20 were cancelled by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 21-37 were added by the preliminary amendment.
Claims 21-37 are pending. Claims 21, 31, and 37 are independent claims.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/1/23 have entered and accepted.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The current title 1) is broad and 2) doesn’t include subject matter being claimed within Applicant’s invention. The title does not involve the subject matter of changing the status of a gaming graphical object under construction in response to a swipe command.
The abstract of the disclosure, filed on 12/1/23, is objected to because is over 150 words. In addition, the abstract involves language that is not in narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The use of the term(s) “Apple”, “Google”, “iPad”, “Android” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 21-37 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. The claim(s) contains 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 21 recites the subject matter/limitations “the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a building construction game implemented on the electronic device… the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a building under construction of the building construction game; generate a menu of building tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of building tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object; detect a selection of a building tool from the menu; …and apply an effect corresponding to the selected building tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the building under construction as rendered on the display screen. Applicant indicated support for emphasized subject matter can be found in 0023-0028 and 0037 of Applicant’s filed specification. However, the Examiner disagrees. Claim 21 discloses the subject matter of a building construction game, the selectable graphical objects comprising a building under construction within the game, a menu of building tools wherein a building tool from menu of building tools is selected, and the applied effect, corresponding from the selected building tool, is change a construction state of the building under construction. However, 0023-0028 and 0037 of Applicant’s filed specification does not support the recited subject matter/limitations. While 0037 discloses “Additionally many types of other simulation games, other than including the farming game described herein, such as for example, construction and management simulation games, can be controlled with the user interface of the disclosed embodiments.”, neither of the cited paragraphs discloses the ability to construct buildings in a building construction game. 0023-0028 discloses the ability to construct a field to harvest crops. For example, 0023-0028 discloses the ability to select a plot of land to plant crops, tend to the crops as they grow (e.g. pesticide, spray, water) and harvest the crops when ready. This can also be viewed as constructing crops for harvesting. However, neither of these paragraphs discloses a user selecting an option to create/construct a building structure (e.g. house) on a plot of selectable land. The specification is silent on showing a building such as a house being in progress of being constructed either. Furthermore, while 0023-0028 discloses a menu of tools for dealing with crops, none of these paragraphs show a menu of building tools that correspond to a state of construction development of the current building being constructed either. In addition, the cited paragraphs do not used a building tool of any kind being selected and an effect of that selected building tool being applied to current building (being constructed) that results in state of the building under construction changing. In other words, 0023-0028 and 0037 discloses the ability to construct objects such as crops (or products) or display graphical objects such as crops under construction on different pieces of land in the GUI wherein a selected option of a menu can change the state of the constructed object. However, Applicant’s specification does not provide any support indicating that the game is a building construction game, able to construct graphical objects such as buildings (e.g. building structures such as houses) or show a graphical object such as a building under construction, displaying a menu of building tools and selecting a building tool that applied to a building under construction to change the state of the building under construction. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find any support within the disclosure in regards of the limitation. Therefore, since this language is not described in the specification for the instant application, the examiner is forced to make a broad interpretation for this language as explained. Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claims are supported within the specification. Thus, since support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported, a prima facie case has been established. See MPEP 2163.04. Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 31 and 37 recite similar issues as in Claim 21 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 23 recites the limitation(s) “wherein the computing hardware is configured to detect an end of the swiping movement, terminate application of the effect, and remove a visual indicator of the selected building tool from the graphical user interface.” However, as explained above in the rejection of claim 21, 0023-0028 and 0037 of Applicant’s filed specification does not support the recited subject matter/limitations. Applicant’s specification does not have support for a selected building tool. Instead, 0023-0028 discloses a menu of tools for dealing with crops which a user can select a tool for interacting with the construction of the crops. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find any support within the disclosure in regards of the limitation. Thus, Applicant’s specification has no support that the generation of the quality report workflow configuration data is done automatically in anyway. Therefore, since this language is not described in the specification for the instant application, the examiner is forced to make a broad interpretation for this language as explained. Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claims are supported within the specification. Thus, since support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported, a prima facie case has been established. See MPEP 2163.04. Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim 36 recites the limitation(s) “the method being implemented to facilitate an online multiplayer gaming system for the building construction game.” However, as explained above in the rejection of claim 21, 0023-0028 and 0037 of Applicant’s filed specification does not support the recited subject matter/limitations. Applicant’s specification does not have support for a building construction game. While 0037 discloses “Additionally many types of other simulation games, other than including the farming game described herein, such as for example, construction and management simulation games, can be controlled with the user interface of the disclosed embodiments.”, neither of the cited paragraphs discloses the ability to construct buildings in a building construction game. 0023-0028 and 0037 discloses the ability to construct objects such as crops (or products) or display graphical objects such as crops under construction on different pieces of land in the GUI wherein a selected option of a menu can change the state of the constructed object within a form of a construction game. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find any support within the disclosure in regards of the limitation. Thus, Applicant’s specification has no support that the generation of the quality report workflow configuration data is done automatically in anyway. Therefore, since this language is not described in the specification for the instant application, the examiner is forced to make a broad interpretation for this language as explained. Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claims are supported within the specification. Thus, since support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported, a prima facie case has been established. See MPEP 2163.04. Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 21-37 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 21 recites the subject matter/limitations “the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a building construction game implemented on the electronic device… the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a building under construction of the building construction game; generate a menu of building tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of building tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object; detect a selection of a building tool from the menu; …and apply an effect corresponding to the selected building tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the building under construction as rendered on the display screen. The claim language discloses a building construction game comprising displayed one or more graphical objects representing buildings under construction, a menu of building tools corresponding to the state of the construction of the selected building where one of the building tools can be selected, and applying an effect associated with the selected building tool that causes a change in a construction state of the building in response to a swiping movement.
However, 0023-0028 and 0037 of Applicant’s filed specification describes the construction of crops and using a menu of crop tools to apply an effect to the construction of a crop field that results in the harvesting of crops. For example, 0023-0028 discloses the ability to select a plot of land to plant crops, tend to the crops as they grow (e.g. pesticide, spray, water) and harvest the crops when ready. This can also be viewed as constructing crops for harvesting. Furthermore, 0023-0028 discloses a menu of tools for dealing with crops wherein selecting one of the crop tools would change a state of the crop field when the selected tool is applied to the constructing field. In other words, 0023-0028 and 0037 discloses the ability to construct objects such as crops (or products) or display graphical objects such as crops under construction on different pieces of land in the GUI wherein a selected option of a menu can change the state of the constructed object. Therefore, Applicant's specification does not state what is being claimed. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 21 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in Paragraphs 0023-0028 and 0037.
For examining purposes, Examiner views the Claim 21 as:“… graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a construction game implemented on the electronic device… the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a game object under construction of the construction game; generate a menu of game object tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of game object tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object; detect a selection of a game object tool from the menu; …and apply an effect corresponding to the selected game object tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the game object under construction as rendered on the display screen.
Claim 31 and 37 recite similar issues as in Claim 21 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 23 recites the limitation(s) “wherein the computing hardware is configured to detect an end of the swiping movement, terminate application of the effect, and remove a visual indicator of the selected building tool from the graphical user interface.” The claim language discloses removing a visual indicator of the selected building tool However, 0023-0028 and 0037 of Applicant’s filed specification describes the construction of crops and using a menu of crop tools to apply an effect to the construction of a crop field that results in the harvesting of crops. 0023-0028 discloses a menu of tools for dealing with crops wherein selecting one of the crop tools would change a state of the crop field when the selected tool is applied to the constructing field. In other words, 0023-0028 and 0037 discloses displaying graphical objects such as crops under construction on different pieces of land in the GUI wherein a selected option of a menu can change the state of the constructed object. Therefore, Applicant's specification does not state what is being claimed. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 23 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in Paragraphs 0023-0028 and 0037.
For examining purposes, Examiner views Claim 23 as: wherein the computing hardware is configured to detect an end of the swiping movement, terminate application of the effect, and remove a visual indicator of the selected game object tool from the graphical user interface.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the software product" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, Examiner views the Claim 28 as: “…updating the change in status of the one or more selectable graphical objects, the computer hardware being coupled to the database…”
Claim 30 contains the trademark/trade name “IPad”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe any “tablet” manufactured and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the displays" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, Examiner views the Claim 35 as: “…generating the graphical user interface temporally concurrently on a display of each of the electronic devices…”
Claim 36 recites the limitation(s) “wherein the plurality of graphical user interfaces comprises a gaming system, the method being implemented to facilitate an online multiplayer gaming system for the building construction game.” However, 0023-0028 and 0037 of Applicant’s filed specification describes the construction of crops and using a menu of crop tools to apply an effect to the construction of a crop field that results in the harvesting of crops. For example, 0023-0028 discloses the ability to select a plot of land to plant crops, tend to the crops as they grow (e.g. pesticide, spray, water) and harvest the crops when ready. This can also be viewed as constructing crops for harvesting. Furthermore, 0023-0028 discloses a menu of tools for dealing with crops wherein selecting one of the crop tools would change a state of the crop field when the selected tool is applied to the constructing field. In other words, 0023-0028 and 0037 discloses the ability to construct objects such as crops (or products) or display graphical objects such as crops under construction on different pieces of land in the GUI wherein a selected option of a menu can change the state of the constructed object. Therefore, Applicant's specification does not state what is being claimed. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 36 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in Paragraphs 0023-0028 and 0037.
For examining purposes, Examiner views the Claim 36 as: “…wherein the plurality of graphical user interfaces comprises a gaming system, the method being implemented to facilitate an online multiplayer gaming system for the construction game…”
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 30-31, and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Android Addicts (herein as “Addicts”)(“The Sims FreePlay Android Review”, online as of March 17, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGNDVRQQXsw + 22 pages of screenshots, text, and transcript from the Google Youtube video in document titled “The Sims FreePlay Android Review [HD]") in further view of DiStefano, III (herein as “DiStefano”)(US 7996259, 8/9/2011)
As per independent claim 21, based on the 112b rejection, Addicts discloses:
an electronic device comprising: a display screen; and a computing hardware configured to execute machine readable instructions stored on a non-transient medium, wherein executing the machine readable instructions by the computing hardware is configured to render a graphical user interface on the display screen, the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a construction game implemented on the electronic device, the computing hardware being further configured to: (pg 1-22: Discloses a software application game called Sims Freeplay playable on Android devices. Sims Freeplay comprises a UI that involves user interaction that includes a construction feature. ~7:29-30 shows the GUI of the construction of a park in mid progress. (pg 4, 11 discloses GUI can include houses that can take 12 hours to build) ~7:44-:45 shows the ability to build a house on a plot of land. (see also pg 9) Furthermore, Addicts indicates that the app is for Android. (pg2, 3) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that apps designed for Android indicated that the app is designed for devices that run the Android operating systems. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized devices running the Android operating system include a display screen and computer hardware that includes a processer, memory and a storage medium.
7:29-30: discloses selecting an area being constructed (i.e. the park)
PNG
media_image1.png
1198
1918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1198
1918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
7:44-7:45: Discloses the ability to select a plot of land which loads a menu of houses to construct
PNG
media_image3.png
1198
1918
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1198
1918
media_image4.png
Greyscale
present one or more selectable graphical objects on the graphical user interface, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a building under construction of the building construction game; (~7:29 shows the GUI of the construction of a park (game object/form of building) in mid progress; pg 4, 11 discloses GUI can include houses that can take 12 hours to build)
detect a selection of a selectable graphical object of the one or more of selectable graphical objects; (~7:29-30 shows the park being selected)
generate a menu of building tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of building tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object;(~7:30 shows a menu popping up giving the options that include using game currency to speed up the construction. The menu shows a progress bar of the amount completed and the time remaining towards completion)
detect a selection of a building tool from the menu; apply an effect corresponding to the selected building tool in the one or more areas… the effect configured to change a construction state of the building under construction as rendered on the display screen (~7:30, page 4, 11; selecting the yellow option would automatically complete the construction of the park. Page 12 states “Using up a Life Point will instantly complete an action/task and save you having to wait around.” One of a skilled artisan would have realized that using a life point will result in the construction being finished, a form of applying an effect that changes a construction state ; ~7:39 is a result of the user hitting the green option that closes the menu
~7:39:
PNG
media_image5.png
1200
1920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
However, the cited art fails to specifically discloses detect a swiping movement along one or more areas of the selected graphical object; and apply an effect corresponding to the selected building tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the building under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, DiStefano discloses detect a swiping movement along one or more areas of the selected graphical object; and apply an effect corresponding to the selected building tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the building under construction as rendered on the display screen. (Col 8, ll. 66 – Col 9, ll. 9: Discloses selecting a tool from a menu (e.g. color style) and dragging the selected tool from the menu to the displayed graphical object. This would cause the displayed graphical object to change its appearance. Thus, DiStefano discloses applying an effect that changing the status of the displayed graphical object in response to the detected dragging movement. Furthermore, the Examiner provides, Schrock, entered as extrinsic evidence, that a dragging movement is a form of a swipe movement (0167, 0169) Thus, when a user is dragging the color to the graphical object from the menu in DiStefano, the user is performing a swiping movement.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of DiStefano since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of eliminating the need to manually configure each object, drastically speeding up the design process.
As per dependent claim 30, based on the rejection of Claim 21 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, DiStefano discloses the electronic device comprises a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an iPad, or a smart phone. (Col 5, ll. 58-60; FIG 1: discloses the use of home computers. FIG 1 shows the image of a desktop computer)
As per independent claims 31 and 37, Claims 31 and 37 recited similar limitations as in Claim 21 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Addicts discloses a medium (Addicts indicates that the app is for Android. (pg 2,3) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that apps designed for Android indicated that the app is designed for devices that run the Android operating systems. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized devices running the Android operating system include a display screen and computer hardware that includes a processer, memory and a storage medium.)
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of DiStefano in further view of Lee et al (US20130125058, filed 11/11/2011)
As per dependent claim 22, the cited art fails to specifically wherein detecting the swiping movement comprises detecting a track of a cursor or pointer object along the graphical user interface. However, Lee et al discloses detecting the swiping movement comprises detecting a track of a cursor or pointer object along the graphical user interface (0079: tracks cursor as it sweeps across the GUI)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Lee et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of maintaining accurate interaction between the user's physical movement and the digital environment and ensuring that the cursor remains responsive, accurate, and visible.
As per dependent claim 32, Claim 32 recites similar limitations as in Claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 23, 27, and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of DiStefano in further view of Kim (US20110304561, 12/15/2011)
As per dependent claim 23, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the computing hardware is configured to detect an end of the swiping movement, terminate application of the effect, and remove a visual indicator of the selected building tool from the graphical user interface. However, Kim discloses the computing hardware is configured to detect an end of the swiping movement, terminate application of the effect, and remove a visual indicator of the selected building tool from the graphical user interface (FIG 4; 0100-0104: when the touch drag input is removed (form of swiping ending), the displayed content returns to its original display state (termination of effect) and the display of the second region (tool) is removed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Lee et al since it would have provided the benefit of allowing a user to easily display related information, data, or associated content by manipulation of the display. (0007)
As per dependent claim 27, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the wherein the computing hardware is configured to disable application of the effect in response to detecting a termination of the swiping movement. However, based on the rejection of Claim 23 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Kim discloses the computing hardware is configured to detect an end of the swiping movement, terminate application of the effect, and remove a visual indicator of the selected building tool from the graphical user interface (FIG 4; 0100-0104: when the touch drag input is removed (form of swiping ending), the displayed content returns to its original display state (disable application of effect) and the display of the second region (tool) is removed)
As per dependent claim 33, based on the rejection of Claim 21 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, DiStefano discloses configuring the graphical user interface to continue to apply the effect corresponding to the selected option during a time of detection of the swiping movement (Col 8, ll. 66 – Col 9, ll. 9: DiStefano discloses applying an effect that changing the status of the displayed graphical object in response to the detected dragging movement). However, DiStefano fails to discloses remove the selected option when the swiping movement is terminated. However, based on the rejection of Claim 23 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Kim discloses to remove the selected option when the swiping movement is terminated. (FIG 4; 0100-0104) Also, Kim discloses the graphical user interface to continue to apply the effect corresponding to the selected option during a time of detection of the swiping movement (0100-0104)
Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of DiStefano in further view of Ying et al (US20130111395, filed 10/28/2011)
As per dependent claim 24, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the computing hardware is configured to detect a speed of the swiping movement along the areas of the selected graphical object; and apply the effect at a rapidity that is dependent at least partially on the speed of the swiping movement. However, Ying et al discloses detect a speed of the swiping movement along the areas of the selected graphical object; and apply the effect at a rapidity that is dependent at least partially on the speed of the swiping movement (0024, 0048: speed in which each transition animation is performed is based on the speed of the swipe gesture. The faster the swipe, the faster the animation is performed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Ying et al since it would have provided the benefit of an efficient approach for presenting content and providing users with intuitive navigational access to the content. (0002)
Claims 25-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of DiStefano in further view of Collins et al (US20090187842, 2009)
As per dependent claims 25-26, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the graphical user interface is a touch- sensitive screen; a user interface implemented on the touch-sensitive screen as a tactile surface of the touch-sensitive screen. However, Collins et al discloses disclose the graphical user interface is a touch- sensitive screen; a user interface implemented on the touch-sensitive screen as a tactile surface of the touch-sensitive screen. (0034, 0036-0037)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Collins et al since it would have provided the benefit of a novel, open ended, programmable electronic device for which its functions are open to further software development (0018)
Claims 28-29, 34-36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of DiStefano in further view of Marsland et al (US20120264520, filed 6/30/2011)
As per dependent claim 28, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a database for continuously recording and updating the change in status of the one or more selectable graphical objects, the software product being coupled to the database and being configured to resume the status of the one or more selectable graphical objects to their last updated status in the database, in case of interruptions in an operable state of the graphical user interface. However, Marsland et al discloses a database for continuously recording and updating the change in status of the one or more selectable graphical objects, the software product being coupled to the database and being configured to resume the status of the one or more selectable graphical objects to their last updated status in the database, in case of interruptions in an operable state of the graphical user interface (0106-0110)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Marsland et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing digital incentives in computer implemented online games (0002)
As per dependent claim 29, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the electronic device further comprises a connection to a server through a network, the graphical user interface being generated temporally concurrently on a plurality of electronic devices connected to the server to facilitate a plurality of users' interaction with the graphical user interface, wherein each of the graphical user interfaces generated on the plurality of electronic devices are coordinated through the server and updated concurrently on the plurality of electronic devices with time. However, based on the rejection of Claim 28 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Marsland et al discloses the electronic device further comprises a connection to a server through a network, the graphical user interface being generated temporally concurrently on a plurality of electronic devices connected to the server to facilitate a plurality of users' interaction with the graphical user interface, wherein each of the graphical user interfaces generated on the plurality of electronic devices are coordinated through the server and updated concurrently on the plurality of electronic devices with time. (0038)
As per dependent claim 34, Claim 34 recites similar limitations as in Claim 28 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 35, Claim 35 recites similar limitations as in Claim 29 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 36, Addicts discloses a gaming system (One of a skilled artisan would have realized since the device can play the game Sims Freeplay, then the device is considered a gaming system.) Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 28 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Marsland et al discloses the plurality of graphical user interfaces comprises a gaming system (0167, 0178), the method being implemented to facilitate an online multiplayer gaming system for the building construction game. (abstract)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11875031 in view of Addicts.
Independent Claims 21, 31, and 37
As per independent claim 21, 31, and 37 of the current application, the combination of claims 1, 10, 11, of 11875031 and 21, 31, and 37 of the current application disclose the subject matter of render a graphical user interface on the display screen, the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a (game object) construction game implemented on the electronic device, the computing hardware being further configured to: present one or more selectable graphical objects on the graphical user interface, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a (game object) under construction of the (game object) construction game; detect a selection of a selectable graphical object of the one or more of selectable graphical objects; generate a menu of (game object) tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of (game object) tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object; detect a selection of a (game object) tool from the menu; detect a swiping movement along one or more areas of the selected graphical object; and apply an effect corresponding to the selected (game object) tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the (game object) under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, 11875031 fails to specifically disclose a building construction game, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a building under construction of the building construction game; generate a menu of building tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of building tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object and change a construction state of the build under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, Addicts discloses a software application game called Sims Freeplay playable on Android devices. Sims Freeplay comprises a UI that involves user interaction that includes a construction feature. (p1-22) ~7:29-30 shows the GUI of the construction of a park in mid progress. (pg 4, 11 discloses GUI can include houses that can take 12 hours to build) ~7:44-:45 shows the ability to build a house on a plot of land. (see also pg 9) Thus, Addicts discloses a game where a user can construct a form of a building; therefore, Addicts discloses a building construction game. Furthermore, Addicts disclose a menu of options is displayed when the area comprising the building under construction is selected. Selecting a particular option results in the construction of the form a building being completed; thus, applying an effect that changes a construction state. (~7:30, page 4, 11; selecting the yellow option would automatically complete the construction of the park. Page 12 states “Using up a Life Point will instantly complete an action/task and save you having to wait around.” One of a skilled artisan would have realized that using a life point will result in the construction being finished, a form of applying an effect that changes a construction state)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Addicts since it would have provided the benefit of the easy-to-learn and hard-to-put-down gameplay (pg 20)
Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-36
Claim(s) 4 of 11875031 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 21, 31, 37 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 21-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11119645 in view of Addicts.
Independent Claims 21, 31, and 37
As per independent claim 21, 31, and 37 of the current application, the combination of claims 1, 9 of 11119645 and 21, 31, and 37 of the current application disclose the subject matter of render a graphical user interface on the display screen, the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a (game object) construction game implemented on the electronic device, the computing hardware being further configured to: present one or more selectable graphical objects on the graphical user interface, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a (game object) under construction of the (game object) construction game; detect a selection of a selectable graphical object of the one or more of selectable graphical objects; generate a menu of (game object) tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of (game object) tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object; detect a selection of a (game object) tool from the menu; detect a swiping movement along one or more areas of the selected graphical object; and apply an effect corresponding to the selected (game object) tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the (game object) under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, 11119645 fails to specifically disclose a building construction game, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a building under construction of the building construction game; generate a menu of building tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of building tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object and change a construction state of the build under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, Addicts discloses a software application game called Sims Freeplay playable on Android devices. Sims Freeplay comprises a UI that involves user interaction that includes a construction feature. (p1-22) ~7:29-30 shows the GUI of the construction of a park in mid progress. (pg 4, 11 discloses GUI can include houses that can take 12 hours to build) ~7:44-:45 shows the ability to build a house on a plot of land. (see also pg 9) Thus, Addicts discloses a game where a user can construct a form of a building; therefore, Addicts discloses a building construction game. Furthermore, Addicts disclose a menu of options is displayed when the area comprising the building under construction is selected. Selecting a particular option results in the construction of the form a building being completed; thus, applying an effect that changes a construction state. (~7:30, page 4, 11; selecting the yellow option would automatically complete the construction of the park. Page 12 states “Using up a Life Point will instantly complete an action/task and save you having to wait around.” One of a skilled artisan would have realized that using a life point will result in the construction being finished, a form of applying an effect that changes a construction state)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Addicts since it would have provided the benefit of the easy-to-learn and hard-to-put-down gameplay (pg 20)
Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-36
Claim(s) 3, 11 of 11119645 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 25, 26 of the current application
Claim(s) 4 of 11119645 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 27, 33 of the current application
Claim(s) 5, 12 of 11119645 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 28, 34 of the current application
Claim(s) 7, 13 of 11119645 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 30 of the current application
Claim(s) 8 of 11119645 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 29, 35 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 21-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10702777 in view of Addicts.
Independent Claims 21, 31, and 37
As per independent claim 21, 31, and 37 of the current application, the combination of claims 1, 12 of 10702777 and 21, 31, and 37 of the current application disclose the subject matter of render a graphical user interface on the display screen, the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a (game object) construction game implemented on the electronic device, the computing hardware being further configured to: present one or more selectable graphical objects on the graphical user interface, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a (game object) under construction of the (game object) construction game; detect a selection of a selectable graphical object of the one or more of selectable graphical objects; generate a menu of (game object) tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of (game object) tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object; detect a selection of a (game object) tool from the menu; detect a swiping movement along one or more areas of the selected graphical object; and apply an effect corresponding to the selected (game object) tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the (game object) under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, 11119645 fails to specifically disclose a building construction game, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a building under construction of the building construction game; generate a menu of building tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of building tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object and change a construction state of the build under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, Addicts discloses a software application game called Sims Freeplay playable on Android devices. Sims Freeplay comprises a UI that involves user interaction that includes a construction feature. (p1-22) ~7:29-30 shows the GUI of the construction of a park in mid progress. (pg 4, 11 discloses GUI can include houses that can take 12 hours to build) ~7:44-:45 shows the ability to build a house on a plot of land. (see also pg 9) Thus, Addicts discloses a game where a user can construct a form of a building; therefore, Addicts discloses a building construction game. Furthermore, Addicts disclose a menu of options is displayed when the area comprising the building under construction is selected. Selecting a particular option results in the construction of the form a building being completed; thus, applying an effect that changes a construction state. (~7:30, page 4, 11; selecting the yellow option would automatically complete the construction of the park. Page 12 states “Using up a Life Point will instantly complete an action/task and save you having to wait around.” One of a skilled artisan would have realized that using a life point will result in the construction being finished, a form of applying an effect that changes a construction state)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Addicts since it would have provided the benefit of the easy-to-learn and hard-to-put-down gameplay (pg 20)
Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-36
Claim(s) 6, 17 of 10702777 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 25, 26 of the current application
Claim(s) 7 of 10702777 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 27, 33 of the current application
Claim(s) 8,18 of 10702777 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 28, 34 of the current application
Claim(s) 10, 19 of 11119645 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 30 of the current application
Claim(s) 11, 20 of 11119645 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 29, 35 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claims 21-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8954890 in view of Addicts.
Independent Claims 21, 31, and 37
As per independent claim 21, 31, and 37 of the current application, the combination of claims 1, 10 of 8954890 and 21, 31, and 37 of the current application disclose the subject matter of render a graphical user interface on the display screen, the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a (game object) construction game implemented on the electronic device, the computing hardware being further configured to: present one or more selectable graphical objects on the graphical user interface, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a (game object) under construction of the (game object) construction game; detect a selection of a selectable graphical object of the one or more of selectable graphical objects; generate a menu of (game object) tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of (game object) tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object; detect a selection of a (game object) tool from the menu; detect a swiping movement along one or more areas of the selected graphical object; and apply an effect corresponding to the selected (game object) tool in the one or more areas corresponding to the detected swiping movement, the effect configured to change a construction state of the (game object) under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, 11119645 fails to specifically disclose a building construction game, the one or more selectable graphical objects comprising areas of a building under construction of the building construction game; generate a menu of building tools associated with the selected graphical object, the menu of building tools corresponding to a state of construction development of the selected graphical object and change a construction state of the build under construction as rendered on the display screen. However, Addicts discloses a software application game called Sims Freeplay playable on Android devices. Sims Freeplay comprises a UI that involves user interaction that includes a construction feature. (p1-22) ~7:29-30 shows the GUI of the construction of a park in mid progress. (pg 4, 11 discloses GUI can include houses that can take 12 hours to build) ~7:44-:45 shows the ability to build a house on a plot of land. (see also pg 9) Thus, Addicts discloses a game where a user can construct a form of a building; therefore, Addicts discloses a building construction game. Furthermore, Addicts disclose a menu of options is displayed when the area comprising the building under construction is selected. Selecting a particular option results in the construction of the form a building being completed; thus, applying an effect that changes a construction state. (~7:30, page 4, 11; selecting the yellow option would automatically complete the construction of the park. Page 12 states “Using up a Life Point will instantly complete an action/task and save you having to wait around.” One of a skilled artisan would have realized that using a life point will result in the construction being finished, a form of applying an effect that changes a construction state)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Addicts since it would have provided the benefit of the easy-to-learn and hard-to-put-down gameplay (pg 20)
Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-36
Claim(s) 3, 6 of 8954890 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 27, 33 of the current application
Claim(s) 4 of 8954890 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 24 of the current application
Claim(s) 5 of 10702777 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 25, 26 of the current application
Claim(s) 7, 12 of 8954890 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 28, 34 of the current application
Claim(s) 8, 13 of 8954890 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 29, 35 of the current application
Claim(s) 9, 19 of 8954890 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 30 of the current application
Claim(s) 11 of 8954890 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 33 of the current application
Claim(s) 14 of 8954890 recite similar limitations as Claim(s) 36 of the current application
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights