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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa et al (US 2003/0055984) in view of Ganetakos et al (US 2011/0264741).
Re claims 1 and 11-13, Shimakawa discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for a game executed on an information processing device (fig. 1), said program causing the information processing device to perform a method comprising: receiving, using an input device and from a first player, a first action-invoking input for a first player character ([0035], the action-invoking input being the player utilizing a portable telephone to make a call); determining a game situation within a virtual space between the first player character and a second player character associated with a second player ([0037], the called player can recognize the communication request); determining a first communication action among a plurality of communication actions automatically according to the game situation in the virtual space in response to receiving the first action-invoking input made by a player (par. [0036], the player submits a call request to call another character in the virtual world, see also fig. 2, S4); determining a second communication action based on receiving a second action-invoking input made by the second player after the execution of the first communication action; and executing the second communication action within the virtual space (see above regarding communication between players).
However, Shimakawa fails to disclose determining a first personality type associated with the first player character from among a plurality of personality types, the first communication action being determined according to the personality type. Ganetakos teaches a game with multiple different personality types for characters in the game ([0015], villager characters can have different personality types, such as happy, grumpy, active, lazy, shy, and flirty). Based on the personality types of interacting characters, responses can vary and are called up automatically ([0062] to [0075]).
It would have been obvious to implement personality types for characters that influence interactions in the game as taught by Ganetakos with the system of Shimakawa in order to provide an immersive and realistic depiction of interactions between different personality types of people.
Re claim 6, Shimakawa discloses deciding that the first communication action is intended for the second player character in response to the second action-invoking input being made by the second player occurring within a predetermined period of time from the first action-invoking input that is made by the first player or the execution of the first communication action ([0106], an error time is determined when a predetermined time elapses, therefore players have a time limit for initiating communication).
Re claim 7, Shimakawa discloses the second communication responds to the first communication action (see the rejection to claim 1, wherein the communication actions are initiating calls between users, therefore the communication actions are considered calling and responding).
Re claim 8, Shimakawa discloses the communication actions including a vocalization or physical movement or combination thereof (see the rejection to claim 1, wherein making a call is considered a physical movement and a vocalization).
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa in view of Ganetakos as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al (US 2007/0015121).
Re claim 2, while Shimakawa has disclosed action-invoking inputs and communication actions as discussed in the rejection to claim 1, Shimakawa does not explicitly disclose a first and second situation determination means for identifying a first and second game situation category on the basis of a game situation of the first and second game medium in response to the action-invoking input made by the first and second player, and a first and second action decision means for deciding a first and second communication action associated with the first and second game situation categories.
Johnson teaches a system wherein characters in the game have different personality profiles which determines how the character reacts to actions by the player and other characters ([0079]). As such, Johnson teaches a plurality of situation categories and deciding communication actions based on the category, since the characters will react differently based on the selected personality profile of the character.
It would have been obvious to implement the personality profiles of Johnson with the communications system of Shimakawa in order to provide variety in the personality of characters in the game environment, increasing player immersion and entertainment.
Re claim 4, Johnson teaches generating a response request that requests the second communication action corresponding to the first communication action decided by the first action decision means and accordingly for the second action decision means ([0079], based on the selected personality profile of characters, responses and reactions will be different).
Re claim 9, Johnson teaches executing different types of communication actions ([0079]).
Re claim 10, Johnson teaches highlighting communication actions ([0081]). Since Johnson discloses that said highlighting indicates a selected agent, it is considered to take place after a predetermined period of time after the execution of the selection.
Re claim 14, see the above rejections regarding communications between players. Ganetakos further teaches executing different communication actions in response to selected communication actions (see [0015], [0062] to [0075], and [0021], where actions between villagers affects relationships and attitudes of villagers).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa in view of Ganetakos as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pierce et al (US 2009/0063635).
Re claim 5, Shimakawa does not explicitly disclose matching control means for matching the game media in a predetermined area in a game field of the game, wherein the first communication action is executed upon the game medium that is matched to the first game medium and that is present in a predetermined range from the first game medium, and the communication action control means decides that the first communication action is intended for the second game medium in the case where the second game medium is located within a predetermined distance from the first game medium in the game field of the game when the first game medium executes the first communication action.
Pierce teaches a system wherein matchmaking occurs between users by closest geographic proximity ([0018], [0025], and [0050]). It would have been obvious to implement the geographic-based matchmaking as taught by Pierce with the system of Shimakawa in order to enable users to seek out and connect with users closer to their own location, simultaneously increasing the sense of community and reducing the latency of communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights