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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an object control unit for controlling”, “a top-priority object setting unit for setting”, “a specific-point determining unit for determining”, and “a virtual-camera control unit for controlling” in claims 1 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 is/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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “one or a plurality of second objects that cannot be operated by the player”, and the claim also recites “a specific point on the basis of the position of the top-priority second object and the position of the other second object” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a specific point on the basis of the position of the top-priority second object and the position of the other second object " in the 4th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “One or a plurality of second objects” is claimed. With only one second object, there cannot be a specific point determination based on a plurality of second objects.
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)(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication 2022/0297005 A1 to Kamiya et al. (hereinafter Kamiya).
Concerning claim 1,
Kamiya discloses a non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium storing a program for generating an image of a virtual space viewed from a virtual camera (Figure 6), the program causing a computer to function as:
an object control unit for controlling movement of a first object that can be operated by a player and one or a plurality of second 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.);
a top-priority object setting unit for setting a top-priority second object from among the second object(s) that is present around the first object (0148-0149, wherein locking on is considered equivalent to a top-priority setting);
a specific-point determining unit for determining, in the case where the other second object is present around the set top-priority second object, a specific point on the basis of the position of the top-priority second object and the position of the other second object (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16, see intermediate point in Figure 16 based off of elements 202, 204, and 210); and
a virtual-camera control unit for controlling at least one of the position and the orientation of the virtual camera on the basis of the determined specific point (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16).
Concerning claim 2,
Kamiya discloses the virtual-camera control unit controls 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 the virtual-camera control unit controls the orientation of the virtual camera on the basis of the type of an action of the first object (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16).
Concerning claim 4,
Kamiya discloses the virtual-camera control unit controls the position of the virtual camera on the basis of at least one of the position of the second object(s), the number of the second objects, and the size of the second object(s) (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16, The claim does not establish whether or not the top priority second object in included. As broadly claimed, it is assumed the second object(s) include the top priority second object).
Concerning claim 5,
Kamiya discloses an information processing device for generating an image of a virtual space viewed from a virtual camera (Figure 6), the information processing device comprising:
an object control unit for controlling movement of a first object that can be operated by a player and one or a plurality of second 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) controlled by processor, while offensive character (element 210) controlled by player);
a top-priority object setting unit for setting a top-priority second object from among the second object(s) that is present in a first range set in accordance with the position of the first object (0148-0149, wherein locking on is considered equivalent to a top-priority setting. As broadly claimed, the virtual space is considered a predetermined range);
a specific-point determining unit for determining, in the case where the other second object is present around the set top-priority second object, a specific point on the basis of the position of the top-priority second object and the position of the other second object (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16, see intermediate point in Figure 16 based off of elements 202, 204, and 210); and
a virtual-camera control unit for controlling at least one of the position and the orientation of the virtual camera on the basis of the determined specific point (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16).
Concerning claim 6,
Kamiya discloses an information processing method for generating an image of a virtual space viewed from a virtual camera, the method being executed by a computer (Figure 6), the method comprising:
controlling movement of a first object that can be operated by a player and one or a plurality of second 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) controlled by processor, while offensive character (element 210) controlled by player);
setting a top-priority second object from among the second object(s) that is present in a first range set in accordance with the position of the first object (0148-0149, wherein locking on is considered equivalent to a top-priority setting. As broadly claimed, the virtual space is considered a predetermined range);
determining, in the case where the other second object is present around the set top-priority second object, a specific point on the basis of the position of the top-priority second object and the position of the other second object (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 the position and the orientation of the virtual camera on the basis of the determined specific point (0135-0136, 0148-0149, Figure 16).
Conclusion
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