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 Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “buffering adjustment information of visual field,” which is recited in each of claims 1, 12, and 13, should instead read “buffering adjustment information of the visual field.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 12-21 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, 12, and 13 recite the limitations “a judgment condition for fling” and “…corresponding to the sliding operation.” Although paragraph 30 of Applicant’s specification explains this judgment condition which separates a fling from a typical sliding operation comprises an acceleration threshold and a preset duration, that distinguishing acceleration threshold and preset duration are never disclosed or explained, thus rendering the practical difference between a fling and a slide as well as the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claims 2-10 and 14-17 are rejected for depending upon claim 1, Claims 18-19 are rejected for depending upon claim 12, and Claims 20-21 are rejected for depending upon claim 13.
Claim 10 is further rejected for the following reason: claim 10 recites the limitation "the operation judgment condition for the sliding operation" in lines 4 and 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is further rejected for the following reason: claim 12 repeatedly recites the limitations “the visual field switching area” (first in line 7) and “the game” (first in line 10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 is further rejected for the following reason: claim 13 repeatedly recites the limitations “the visual field switching area” (first in line 4) and “the game” (first in line 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As presented, the combination of all the elements of the independent claims do not appear in a single reference of prior art. Additionally, based on the art of record, it does not appear that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine various pieces of the cited prior art to obtain each and every limitation as currently required by the independent claims.
Specifically, the closest prior art of record, US 2018/0353858 (hereinafter “Kanemori”) fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the following limitations (regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 13): “determining buffering adjustment information of visual field corresponding to the sliding operation [and] performing buffering adjustment of switching of the visual field for a current visual field picture of the game based on the buffering adjustment information of the visual field to display a target visual field picture of the game in the graphical user interface” and “determining compensating adjustment information of the visual field corresponding to the sliding operation, and performing compensating adjustment of switching of the visual field for the current visual field picture of the game based on the compensating adjustment information of the visual field to display the target visual field picture of the game in the graphical user interface.”
Although Kanemori discloses a control method for a mobile game which aims to reduce lag during the “common operation period” for an action which may be either a flick/fling or a typical slide (Kanemori, pars. 0006-0009 and 0042-0043), both actions result in different kinds of visual field movement (Kanemori, fig. 7), and there is no implied or explicit step for buffering or compensating of the visual field; instead, the process corresponding to a slide simply occurs until the user’s finger has been lifted within a specific duration associated with a fling, at which point the process corresponding to a fling begins (Kanemori, fig. 7).
Additional relevant art of record fails to cure these deficiencies. Specifically, JP 2022/074309 (hereinafter “Hayashi”) recites a game with a visual field switching area which a control method which accepts flings and slides. However, Hayashi discloses the relevant processes occur after the input is completed, and there is no equivalent buffering or compensating step. Similarly, JP 2017/148481 (hereinafter “Kamiyama”) discloses a game control method in which a fling operation is input, and the processor selects one of several processes associated with different types of flings/flicks. Again, there is no equivalent buffering or compensating step during or after the identification of the fling type.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715