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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 03/02/2026. Claims 1-4 and 7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered for claims 1-3 and 7 but they are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered for claim 4 but they are not persuasive
Regarding Claim 4, the applicant argues that Kondo does not teach adjust an angle of view at which a target captured by the virtual camera at the entire position. The applicant argues even if Wada discloses changing an angle of view that the cited portions do not describe adjusting an angle of view at which a target is captured by a virtual camera arranged at the entire view position or the character capturing position. The applicant argues that the rational to modify Kondo to include Wada’s teach does not provide sufficient explanation.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Wada discloses the processor adjust an angle of view at which a target is captured by the virtual camera at the entire view position and/or the character- capturing position (Page 11, paragraph 0030-31, see Figure 8 (English translation shows Figure 9 but foreign document shows Figure 8). Wada explicitly recites adjusting the angle of an object/target at a character capturing position.
In response to applicant’s argument that the motivation to combine the reference is insufficient, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine in order to dynamically change a virtual space displayed on a monitor (page 3, Problem to be solved) and to allow a character to recognize an object and move the object (paragraph 0031-0032) as disclosed by Wada.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al (JP 2019219702 and hereafter referred to as “Kondo,” English translation provided by applicant on 06/24/2024) in view of Taoka et al (US 2015/0246284 and hereafter referred to as “Taoka”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kondo discloses a video creation system for creating a video of a character acting in a virtual space, the video creation system comprising:
a director device including memory which stores display data of a virtual space and display data of a character (Page 13-14, paragraphs 0027-0028) and a first processor (Page 13, paragraph 0026, Figure 7, 340, CPU);
a performer device separately provided from the director device and configured to allow at least one user/performer to input an action of the character (Page 13-14, paragraph 0027, Page 12, paragraph 0024, control unit of HMD, Figure 1, 110, 125, Figure 5, 125, Figure 2, 110);
the processor is configured to:
read the display data of the character from the memory and cause the character to act in the virtual space according to the action of the character input through the performer device (Page 13-16, paragraph 0027—0029, 0032, 0034);
set an entire view position at which an entire view of the virtual space is captured and a character-capturing position at which the character in the virtual space is captured at a predetermined angle of view (Figure 11a, Figure 11b, Page 16-17, paragraph 0034-0035, Page 15-16, paragraph 0031, 0032; the director device receives data from the performer device which includes entire view position and character-capturing position, Figure 6, 640 – the virtual camera unit switches the virtual camera, the posture and direction of the character, the background area );
receive an input for switching a shooting position between the entire view position and the character-capturing position (Page 16-17, paragraph 0034-0035, Page 15-16, paragraph 0031, 0032; the director device receives data from the performer device which includes entire view position and character-capturing position, Figure 6, 640 – the virtual camera unit switches the virtual camera, the posture and direction of the character, the background area);
generate data of an image obtained by shooting the virtual space with a virtual camera at the shooting position input (Page 13-15, paragraph 0027, 0029); and
create data of a video by sequentially recording the data of images (Page 16-17, paragraph 0035).
Kondo does not explicitly disclose the director device being configured to control non-player characters and being operated by a director who issues prompts to at least one performer.
Taoka discloses the director device being configured to control non-player characters and being operated by a director who issues prompts to at least one performer ( Page 6, paragraph 0078, Page 4, paragraph 0043, Figure 2, computer device controls non-player characters and operated by host/director and informs characters/performer and performers control actions of the player actors), performer device separately provided from the director device and configured to allow at least one user/performer to input an action of the character (Page 7, paragraph 0078, Page 4, paragraph 0043-0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo to include the missing limitations as taught by Taoka in order to play cooperatively in multiplayer games (Page 1, paragraph 0001) as disclosed by Taoka.
Regarding Claim 2, Kondo and Taoka disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo discloses further comprising a shooting image display which displays an image of the virtual space captured by the virtual camera at the entire view position and an image of the virtual space captured by the virtual camera at the character-capturing position (Page 13-14, paragraph 0028, Page 16-17, paragraph 0035).
Regarding Claim 3, Kondo and Taoka disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo discloses a character viewpoint display which displays an image in which the virtual space is captured from a viewpoint of the character (Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Kondo and Taoka disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo discloses the director device comprises a display including a selection region for selecting one of the entire view position and the character capturing position as the shooting position and including a main display region (figure 11a, Figure 11b, Page 16-17, paragraph 0034-0035, Page 15-16, paragraph 0031, 0032; the director device receives data from the performer device which includes entire view position and character-capturing position, Figure 6, 640 – the virtual camera unit switches the virtual camera, the posture and direction of the character, the background area) and wherein the main display region displays the image obtained by shooting the virtual space with the virtual camera arranged at the shooting position (Figure 11a, Figure 11b, Page 16-17, paragraph 0034-0035, Page 15-16, paragraph 0031, 0032; the director device receives data from the performer device which includes entire view position and character-capturing position, Figure 6, 640 – the virtual camera unit switches the virtual camera, the posture and direction of the character, the background area), set an entire view position at which an entire view of the virtual space is captured and a character-capturing position at which the character in the virtual space is captured at a predetermined angle of view (Page 16-17, paragraph 0034-0035, Page 15-16, paragraph 0031, 0032; the director device receives data from the performer device which includes entire view position and character-capturing position, Figure 6, 640 – the virtual camera unit switches the virtual camera, the posture and direction of the character, the background area).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Taoka as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wada et al (JP 2002049937 and hereafter referred to as “Wada”, English translation provided by applicant on 06/24/2024).
Regarding Claim 4, Kondo and Taoka disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Kondo is silent on adjust an angle of view at which a target is captured by the virtual camera at the entire view position and/or the character- capturing position. Wada discloses the processor adjust an angle of view at which a target is captured by the virtual camera at the entire view position and/or the character- capturing position (Page 11, paragraph 0030-31, see Figure 8 (English translation shows Figure 9 but foreign document shows Figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kondo to include the missing limitation as taught by Wada in order to dynamically change a virtual space displayed on a monitor (page 3, Problem to be solved) and to allow a character to recognize an object and move the object (paragraph 0031-0032) as disclosed by Wada.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights