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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 11-13 recite the limitation “an action-invoking input made by the first player” and “an action-invoking input made by a second player.” It is unclear whether the action-invoking input made by the first player is meant to be the same action-invoking input made by the second player or whether the claim is stating that each player has their own action-invoking input and that the inputs are not necessarily the same input.
The Examiner will assume that the claim is disclosing a first and second action-invoking input made by the first and second players respectively until further clarification and correction can be provided by Applicant.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 11-13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Shimakawa et al (US 2003/0055984).
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 function as:
communication action control means for deciding a communication action among a plurality of communication actions according to a game situation in response to an action-invoking input made by a player and causing a game medium associated with the player to execute the decided communication action (par. [0036], the player submits a call request to call another character in the virtual world, see also fig. 2, S4),
wherein the communication action control means decides a first communication action on the basis of a game situation of a first game medium associated with a first player in response to an action-invoking input made by the first player ([0035], the action-invoking input being the player utilizing a portable telephone to make a call), causes the first game medium to execute the first communication action ([0037], in response to the call request, the server transmits the image and sound of the incoming call to the contacted second player), decides a second communication action in response to an action-invoking input made by a second player after the execution of the first communication action ([0037], the called player can recognize the communication request), and causes a second game medium associated with the second player to execute the second communication action ([0041] and [0042], the system initiates the voice or data communication on the called player’s device).
Shimakawa is considered equivalent to the teachings and embodiments disclosed in Applicant’s specification as both Shimakawa and the instant application utilize servers and clients via network connections to initiate and facilitate communications between multiple players in a game environment.
Re claim 6, Shimakawa discloses deciding that the first communication action is intended for the second game medium where the action-invoking input made by the second player occurs within a predetermined period of time from the action-invoking input 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 first communication action is a communication action responding to the second 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 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) 2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa 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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa 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.
Conclusion
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