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 .
Claims 1-56 are currently pending and prosecuted.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-56 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.
Specifically, with respect to claims 1 and 29, Applicant’s claims discuss a computer implemented method of rendering computer-generated three-dimensional objects that are dynamically loaded based on game state data receive from a game server. However, there is no positive recitation within the claim limitations as to how the three-dimensional object is presented to the user, i.e., utilizing a display, providing a holographic image, providing a mixed reality image, etc.. The prior art of record makes clear some form of display is required in order to present the images to the user. As such, it is unclear to the Examiner, based on the plain language of the claims, how the computer system renders and presented the computer-generated three-dimensional object to a user. Thus, claims 1 and 29 are rejected under 112(b) for being indefinite. Additionally, claims 2-28 and 30-56 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 29, respectively.
Appropriate clarification is required for a thorough search and comparison with the prior art. As such, claims 1-56 will not be further considered with respect to the prior art because the scope of the claim language is not presented in a manner that the meaning would be reasonably definite and that it requires speculative assumptions for interpretation (see MPEP 2143.03, In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) (if no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain claim language, the claim is indefinite, not obvious) and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions)).
The Examiner’s rationale in not providing a prior art rejection is based at least partly on MPEP 2173.06 (II), which states in part: “Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smiters et al., US PG-Pub 2015/0334403, teaches rendering of three-dimensional images utilizing a texture adding feature; and
Wihlidal, US PG-Pub 2020/0051287, teaches texture mapping on a provided image during a rendering process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN T REED whose telephone number is (571)272-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0800-1800.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
STEPHEN T. REED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Stephen T. Reed/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights