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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claim amendments filed 6/14/2024.
Claims 1-36 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 6/14/2024 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
The claims are drawn to process, apparatus and CRM categories.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Representative Claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea, noting that independent Claims 10, 19 & 28 recite substantially similar limitations but being drawn to different statutory classes:
Claim 1: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a processor of an information processing apparatus, cause the information processing apparatus to perform: a player character control process for controlling a player character in a field in a three-dimensional virtual space based on an operation input; a first virtual camera movement process for moving a first virtual camera according to a movement of the player character; a first image generation process for generating a first image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a first object constituting the field, based on the first virtual camera; a second image generation process for generating a second image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a second object outside an imaging area of the first virtual camera, based on a second virtual camera that moves in conjunction with the first virtual camera; and an image combining process for generating a game image through combining the first and second images.”
Claim 10: “A game apparatus comprising a processor and a memory coupled thereto, the processor being configured to control the game apparatus to at least perform: a player character control process for controlling a player character in a field in a three-dimensional virtual space based on an operation input; a first virtual camera movement process for moving a first virtual camera according to a movement of the player character; a first image generation process for generating a first image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a first object constituting the field, based on the first virtual camera; a second image generation process for generating a second image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a second object outside an imaging area of the first virtual camera, based on a second virtual camera that moves in conjunction with the first virtual camera; and an image combining process for generating a game image through combining the first and second images.”
Claim 19: “A game system comprising a server apparatus and a user terminal connected to each other via a network, the user terminal comprising a processor and a memory coupled thereto, the processor being configured to control the user terminal to at least perform: an input process for accepting an operation input from a user; a communications process for sending input operation information to the server apparatus as well as receiving game information sent from the server apparatus; and a display process for displaying a game image, the server apparatus comprising a processor and a memory coupled thereto, the processor being configured to control the server apparatus to at least perform: a communications process for receiving operation information sent from the user terminal as well as sending game information to the user terminal; a player character control process for controlling a player character in a field in a three-dimensional virtual space based on operation information of the user; a first virtual camera movement process for moving a first virtual camera according to a movement of the player character; a first image generation process for generating a first image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a first object constituting the field, based on the first virtual camera; a second image generation process for generating a second image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a second object outside an imaging area of the first virtual camera, based on a second virtual camera that moves in conjunction with the first virtual camera; and an image combining process for generating a game image through combining the first and second images.”
Claim 28: “A game method for generating a game image using a computer of an information processing apparatus, the game method comprising the steps of: the computer controlling a player character in a field in a three-dimensional virtual space based on an operation input; the computer moving a first virtual camera according to a movement of the player character; the computer generating a first image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a first object constituting the field, based on the first virtual camera; the computer generating a second image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a second object outside an imaging area of the first virtual camera, based on a second virtual camera that moves in conjunction with the first virtual camera; and the computer generating a game image through combining the first and second images.”
The italicized limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG1, “certain methods of organizing human activity”, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The claims are drawn to controlling a video game using cameras to generate game images and game progress. This is managing interactions between people, i.e., users controlling game characters as a video game storyline progresses. This is also managing personal behavior as it represents how users manipulate characters in a game scene.
Further, to the extent the claims are drawn to controlling game play, this represents interactions a social activity, i.e., playing video games is a social activity. It also represents following rules/instructions (i.e., rules defining how the game and its images are rendered/displayed.)
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations drawn to a computing systems with a server, processor and memory.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional computer implementation.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract process. However, these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, the prior art relied on in the obviousness rejection, infra, shows the conventionality of computing systems with a server, processor and memory used to control games. These elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Additionally, Applicant’s Specifications acknowledge that generic devices including personal computers are used to implement the claimed invention.2
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they only recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit precedent controls3:
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 19, 21, 28 & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawagoe et al. (U.S. Patent No.: 6,325,717 B1) in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2021/0236929 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 19 & 28: Kawagoe discloses a game method, CRM storing instructions, user terminal and a server connected to each other via a network, the user terminal comprising a processor and a memory coupled thereto, the processor being configured to control the user terminal to at least perform: an input process for accepting an operation input from a user; a communications process for sending input operation information to the server apparatus as well as receiving game information sent from the server apparatus;
Kawagoe discloses a display process for displaying a game image, the server apparatus comprising a processor and a memory coupled thereto, the processor being configured to control the server apparatus to at least perform: a communications process for receiving operation information sent from the user terminal as well as sending game information to the user terminal; a player character control process for controlling a player character in a field in a three-dimensional virtual space based on operation information of the user;
Kawagoe discloses a first virtual camera movement process for moving a first virtual camera according to a movement of the player character; a first image generation process for generating a first image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a first object constituting the field, based on the first virtual camera; a second image generation process for generating a second image in the three-dimensional virtual space containing a second object outside an imaging area of the first virtual camera, based on a second virtual camera that moves in conjunction with the first virtual camera.
Kawagoe discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit, an image combining process for generating a game image through combining the first and second images. However, in a related invention, Jang teaches a video game imaging system that generates panoramic and 360° VR images by combining images from multiple virtual cameras, (Jang, Abstract, Figs. 4, 12 and related descriptions.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided Jang’s image combining processes in Kawagoe’s system for several reasons including specifically identifying facilitating the concurrent viewing of multiple different game angles, (e.g., Jang, ¶ 4). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize showing multiple viewpoints requires merging images acquired from multiple cameras. This yields predictable results of generating panoramic and/or 360° VR images.
Regarding Claims 3, 12, 21 & 30: Kawagoe in view of Jang teaches horizontally shifting a texture of a predetermined area in the second image; and then combining the second image with the first image, (Jang, e.g., ¶¶ 50-58).
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See MPEP 2106
2 Specifications “[0064] FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an example of a hardware configuration of the game apparatus 10 of the embodiment. The game apparatus 10 is, for example, a smartphone, a stationary or portable game apparatus, a tablet terminal, a portable phone, a personal computer, a wearable terminal, or the like. Information processing of the embodiment can be applied to a game system comprising such a game apparatus described above or the like and a predetermined server apparatus. A stationary game apparatus (hereinafter referred to as the game apparatus) is described in the embodiment as an example.” (Emphasis Added.)
3: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015)