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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0297005 A1 to Kamiya et al. (hereinafter Kamiya) in view of US Patent 8210943 B1 to Woodard et al. (hereinafter Woodard).
Concerning claim 1,
Kamiya discloses a non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium storing a program (Figure 6), the program causing a computer to perform a method comprising:
generating an image of a virtual space that is viewed from a virtual camera (0148);
controlling movement of a first object that can be operated by a player and a plurality of objects that cannot be operated by the player in the virtual space (0121, 0148-0149, Figure 16, player character (element 202) and enemy character(s) (element 204) are controlled by the processor, while the offensive character (element 210) is controlled by player in the embodiment referenced. In this embodiment, when the offensive character is sent out, the computer takes control of the player character);
setting a second object among the plurality of objects as a top-priority object (0148-0149, wherein locking on is considered equivalent to a top-priority setting),
wherein the top-priority object is present around the first object (0148-0149), and
determining, in response to a subset of the plurality of objects being present around the top-priority object, a specific point within the virtual space based on a first position of the top-priority object and a plurality of positions of the subset of the plurality of objects (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16, see intermediate point in Figure 16 based off of elements 202, 204, and 210), and
controlling at least one of a position of the virtual camera and an orientation of the virtual camera based on the determined specific point within the virtual space (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16).
Kamiya does not clearly disclose wherein a third object among the plurality of objects is excluded from consideration as the top-priority object based on a fourth object (mountain) blocking a view of the third object (element 830, 840) by the first object (0148-0149, Figure 22, Kamiya discloses the requirement for the enemy character to appear to alter the behavior of the virtual camera, but does not explicitly read on the claimed limitation).
Woodard teaches wherein a third object among the plurality of objects is excluded from consideration as the top-priority object based on a fourth object blocking a view of the third object by the first object (Col. 11; ln. 60 – Col. 12; ln 26, Figure 8)
Kamiya discloses that the locking on changes the orientation of the virtual camera. Therefore, if locking on is prevented due to an object being obscured, the specific point is not based on a second position of the third object that is blocked from the view of the first object by the fourth object (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16, Figure 22).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the locking on mechanism of Woodard with the camera control apparatus of Kamiya as both relate to the locking onto an enemy in a game. Preventing the player from locking onto an enemy who is obscured as taught in Woodard into the camera control apparatus of Kamiya would be helpful to the player by preventing the camera from focusing on enemies who are not in sight, potentially hindering gameplay.
Concerning claim 2,
Kamiya discloses controlling the orientation of the virtual camera such that the specific point is contained in a predetermined range in the image viewed from the virtual camera (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16, as broadly claimed, the virtual space is considered a predetermined range).
Concerning claim 3,
Kamiya discloses controlling the orientation of the virtual camera based on a type of an action of the first object (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16).
Concerning claim 4,
Kamiya discloses controlling the position of the virtual camera based on at least one of a number of the subset of the plurality of objects, and one or more sizes of the subset of the plurality of objects (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16).
Concerning claim 5-6, see the rejection of claim 1.
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 ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights