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 .
Response to Arguments
The claims remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, as presented in detail below.
The previous objections to the Specification and the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Specification and the claims, filed 07/20/26.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 07/20/26. However, new rejections of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been presented in light of the amendments to the claims, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim limitations are directed to specific improvements in video game technology, specifically by not affecting the tempo and flow of the game (Remarks, filed 07/20/26, pp. 10-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The described improvement is directed to a user experience/gameplay (i.e., a desirable “flow”), as opposed to technological improvement (e.g., an improvement to the functioning of the computer, game apparatus, network, display, or another technological field). The Specification supports this conclusion, where the Specification essentially discloses improving the player’s gaming experience by allowing the player to be revived when a revival assistance object is within a predetermined range from the player and terminating the game when, for example, the revival assistance object is not within the predetermined range, thus, for instance, the player does not have to wait for another player to catch up to help them (see Specification, [0003-0006]). The limitations of claim 1 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically rules for playing a game, including determining whether a revival assistance object is present (in a predetermined range), changing the state of the player object based on the presence and interaction with the revival assistance object, and determining whether the play of the game continues or terminates based on the presence of or interaction with (or lack thereof) the revival assistance object. The additional limitations of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processor, game apparatus, network, receiving information from another game apparatus, and updating display are recited at a high level of generality and encompass generic computer components and, thus merely function as instructions to implement the abstract idea (rules for playing/managing game play) using conventional computing technology.
Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Koike does not allow the player to enter into a revivable state upon determining that another teammate is within a predetermined range, but rather, where the player character enters the revivable state regardless as to whether another teammate is present (though the other teammate’s presence is required to revive the character) (Remarks, filed 07/20/26, p. 13). Examiner agrees. That is, Koike fails to disclose shifting a state of the player character simply based on a determination as to whether a revival assistance object exists within a predetermined range, as required by the independent claims. Rather, Koike discloses wherein the player character is shifted to a suspended death state merely upon receiving a threshold level of damage, and shifting back to a normal state when a restoration icon has been operated (the player character comes into contact with the revival assistance object).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-13 of copending Application No. 18/747,028 (U.S. Pub. 2024/0424410 A1) (reference/copending application) in view of Koike (JP 2018202084 A), as shown in the Table and explained below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
App. No. 18/745,524
App. No. 18/747,028
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program executed by a processor of a game apparatus for executing a process of generating a game stage including a player object controllable to move on the basis of an operation by a player and another player object controlled to move on the basis of information received from another game apparatus connected via a network, the game program, when executed, causing the processor to provide execution comprising:
Claim 6: The storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the processor to: […]
(Claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program executed by a processor of a game apparatus for executing a process of generating a game stage including a player object controllable to move on the basis of an operation by a player and another player object controlled to move on the basis of information received from another game apparatus connected via a network, the game program causing the processor to:)
determining whether or not a revival assistance object, including the other player object, exists within a predetermined range from the player object when a mistake occurs in a game stage;
Claim 6: The storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the processor to: determine whether or not the revival assistance object exists within a predetermined range from the player object, when a mistake occurs in the predetermined game stage […].)
(Claim 1 recites “any revival assistance object including the other player object”)
upon determining that the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range: shifting the player object to a special state where the player object does not become damaged in the game stage when the revival assistance object is within the predetermined range;
Claim 6: […] shift the player object to the special state where the player object does not become damaged in the game stage, if it is determined that the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range from the player object.
updating display of the player object in accordance with the player object having been shifted to the special state;
returning the player object from the special state to a normal state where the player object can become damaged in the game stage, without terminating play of the game stage, if the player object comes into contact with the revival assistance object while the player object is in the special state; and
(Claim 1: return the player object from the special state to a normal state where the player object can become damaged in the game stage, without terminating play of the game stage, if the player object comes into contact with any revival assistance object including the other player object and a placement object placed in the game stage by the other player object, while the player object is in the special state; and)
updating display of the player object in accordance with the player object returning to the normal state;
upon determining that the revival assistance object does not exist within the predetermined range, or upon determining that a predetermined condition is satisfied without the player object coming into contact with the revival assistance object while the player object is in the special state: terminating the play of the game stage for at least the player object.
(Claim 1: terminate the play of the game stage if the player object has not come into contact with any revival assistance object while the player object is in the special state.)
Claim 2: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the player object is operable while being in the special state, the player object is in the special state for a predetermined time, and the play of the game stage is terminated if the player object has not come into contact with the revival assistance object within the predetermined time after the player object is shifted to the special state.
Claim 7: The storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the player object is operable while being in the special state, a state where the player object is in the special state continues for a predetermined time, and the play of the game stage is terminated if the player object has not come into contact with the revival assistance object within the predetermined time after the player object is shifted to the special state.
Claim 3: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 2, wherein, when the shift to the special state occurs in the same game stage a plurality of times, the predetermined time is gradually shortened as the number of times of the shift to the special state increases.
Claim 8: The storage medium according to claim 7, wherein, when the shift to the special state occurs in the same game stage a plurality of times, the predetermined time is gradually shortened as the number of times of the shift to the special state increases.
Claim 4: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the processor to provide execution comprising causing a ghost character to appear in the game stage, wherein the ghost character acts on the basis of replay data for replaying a play content of another player, and the revival assistance object includes the ghost character related to the other player in addition to the other player object.
Claim 9: The storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the game program further causes the processor to cause a ghost character to appear in the game stage, the ghost character acting on the basis of replay data for replaying a play content of another player, and the revival assistance object includes the ghost character related to the other player in addition to the other player object.
Claim 5: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 4, wherein the game program further causes the processor to provide execution comprising: recording an action content of the player object in a predetermined period as the replay data and transmitting the replay data to a predetermined server at a predetermined timing; acquiring the replay data transmitted by another player, from the predetermined server at a predetermined timing after the play of the game stage by the player is started; and causing the ghost character to act on the basis of the replay data acquired from the predetermined server.
Claim 10: The storage medium according to claim 9, wherein the game program further causes the processor to: record an action content of the player object in a predetermined period as the replay data and transmit the replay data to a predetermined server at a predetermined timing; acquire the replay data transmitted by another player, from the predetermined server at a predetermined timing after the play of the game stage by the player is started; and cause the ghost character to act on the basis of the replay data acquired from the predetermined server.
Claim 6: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the other player object does not affect the player object in the normal state.
Claim 11: The storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the other player object does not affect the player object in the normal state.
Claim 7: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the other player object is displayed in a semi-transparent manner when the player object is in the normal state, and the other player object is displayed in an opaque manner when the player object is in the special state.
Claim 12: The storage medium according to claim 11, wherein the other player object is displayed in a semi-transparent manner when the player object is in the normal state, and is displayed in an opaque manner when the player object is in the special state.
Claim 8: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 7, wherein, when the player object is in the special state, a game screen is displayed such that a saturation of the game stage is decreased except for the revival assistance object.
Claim 13: The storage medium according to claim 12, wherein, when the player object is in the special state, a game screen is displayed such that a saturation of the game stage is decreased except for the revival assistance object.
Claim 9: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the processor to provide execution comprising: causing an other player object to place a placement object at a predetermined position in the game stage; and returning the player object from the special state to the normal state in association with the player object in the special state coming into contact with the placement object placed by the other player object.
Claim 6: The storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the processor to: […]
(Claim 1: […] return the player object from the special state to a normal state where the player object can become damaged in the game stage, without terminating play of the game stage, if the player object comes into contact with any revival assistance object including the other player object and a placement object placed in the game stage by the other player object, while the player object is in the special state […].)
Claim 17: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the player object is shifted to the special state only when the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range.
Claim 6: The storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the processor to: […] shift the player object to the special state where the player object does not become damaged in the game stage, if it is determined that the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range from the player object.
The italicized limitations in the Table above highlight the distinctions between claims 1-9 and 17 of the present application and claims 6-13 of copending Application No. 18/747,028. It is noted that while claim 1 of the present application recites where the play of the game stage may be terminated if it is determined that the revival assistance object does not exist within the predetermined range from the player object, the play of the game stage may alternatively be terminated if a predetermined condition is satisfied without the player object coming into contact with the revival assistance object while the player is in the special state, which is likewise claimed in claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/747,028. Moreover, while claim 1 of the present application is broader than claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/747,028, as claim 1 recites the revival assistance object, including the other player object, while claim 6 of the copending application recites a revival assistance object including the other player object and a placement object placed in the game stage by the other player object, the broader claim of the instant application is anticipated by claim 6 of the copending application.
Claim 6 of the copending application does not further claim updating display of the player object in accordance with the player object having been shifted to the special state and updating display of the player object in accordance with the player object returning to the normal state. Yet, Koike teaches updating a display of the player object based on the player object shifting states (e.g., suspended death state and normal state) (see Fig. 16; [0172]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further update display of the player object shifting states of claim 6 of the copending application, as taught by Koike, to further indicate the respective states to the player.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“and another player object” recited in claim 1, ln. 4, claim 15, ln. 2-3, and claim 16, ln. 3 should likely read “and an other player object” to avoid claim ambiguity;
“upon determining that the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range: shifting the player object to a special state where the player object does not become damaged in the game stage when the revival assistance object is within the predetermined range;” recited in claim 1, ln 10-14, claim 15, ln. 12-17, and claim 16, ln. 9-12 should likely read “upon determining that the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range: shifting the player object to a special state where the player object does not become damaged in the game stage
“updating display of the player object” recited in claim 1, ln. 15, claim 15, ln. 18, and claim 16, ln. 12 should likely read “updating a display of the player object”;
“updating display of the player object” recited in claim 1, ln. 21, claim 15, ln. 24, and claim 16, ln. 18 should likely read “updating the display of the player object”;
“the other player” recited in claim 4, ln. 6 should likely read “the another player” for consistency purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity;
“recording an action content of the player object in” recited in claim 5, ln. 4 should likely read “recording an action content of the another player
“by another player” recited in claim 5, ln. 6 should likely read “by the another player”.
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 10-13 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.
Claim 10 recites “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 9, wherein the player object is not returned to the normal state in association with the player object in the special state coming into contact with the placement object placed by the player object.” First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the placement object placed by the player object”. Second, assuming the subject limitation is intended to read “the placement object placed by the other player object” (see claim 9, ln. 4), such limitation would be indefinite as it contradicts claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, which recites in part “returning the player object from the special state to the normal state in association with the player object in the special state coming into contact with the placement object placed by the other player object”.
Claim 11 recites in part “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 9, wherein the game program further causes the processor to provide execution comprising: transmitting placement information, including at least position information of the placement object, to a predetermined server when the player object places the placement object”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “when the player object places the placement object”.
A suggested amendment is as follows: “when the other player object places the placement object”.
Claims 12-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the player object is shifted to the special state only when the revival assistance object is within the predetermined range.” However, claim 1, from which claim 17 depends, recites in relevant part “upon determining that the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range: shifting the player object to a special state where the player object does not become damaged in the game stage when the revival assistance object is within the predetermined range”. There is no other circumstance considered or inferred by the claim language of claim 1 under which the player object can be shifted to the special state. In claim 1, the presence of the revival assistance object within the predetermined range is the only recited condition for shifting the player object to the special state, and therefore, the recitation of shifting the player object to the special state only when the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range does not specify a further limitation of the independent claim.
Claims 18-19 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 1 recites in part “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, which falls within the “manufacture” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The Specification discloses wherein the invention serves to improve a gameplay experience, particularly a tempo and flow of a game, through the implementation of rules (i.e., revival assistance object within a predetermined range from a player object when a mistake occurs = shift to a special state (i.e., a revivable state); revival assistance object not within a predetermined range = terminate the play of the game stage; failure to contact a revival assistance object before a predetermined condition (i.e., time limit) is satisfied = terminate the play of the game stage) (see Specification, [0003-0008]). The claim recites a series of steps which encompass certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(citing In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to rules for playing a dice game were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games” which the Court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically following rules or instructions)).
Claim 1 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program executed by a processor of a game apparatus for executing a process of generating a game stage including a player object controllable to move on the basis of an operation by a player and another player object controlled to move on the basis of information received from another game apparatus connected via a network, the game program, when executed, causing the processor to provide execution comprising (generic computing components: non-transitory computer-readable medium, processor, game apparatus, network):
determining whether or not a revival assistance object, including the other player object, exists within a predetermined range from the player object when a mistake occurs in a game stage; upon determining that the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range: shifting the player object to a special state where the player object does not become damaged in the game state when the revival assistance object is within the predetermined range; updating display of the player object in accordance with the player object having been shifted to the special state; returning the player object form the special state to a normal state where the player object can become damaged in the game stage, without terminating play of the game stage, if the player object comes into contact with the revival assistance object while the player object is in the special state; and updating display of the player object in accordance with the player object returning to the normal state (human activity: following rules or instructions); and
upon determining that the revival assistance object does not exist within the predetermined range, or upon determining that a predetermined condition is satisfied without the player object coming into contact with the revival assistance object while the player object is in the special state: terminating the play of the game stage for at least the player object (human activity: following rules or instructions).
The limitations, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, as noted above, but for the recitation of generic computing components. That is, based on a determination whether or not a revival assistance object is within a predetermined range from a player object when a mistake occurs in a game stage, providing for the ability of revival of the player object or alternatively, terminating the play of the game stage. The above-recited limitations recite rules for playing a game, and accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements (non-transitory computer-readable medium, processor, game apparatus, network, updating display) do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than the use of generic computer components to perform the abstract ideas and/or generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment (i.e., computing environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or other technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), recites a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), recites a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or recites any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than the use of generic computer components on which to implement the abstract idea, and/or to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The generic computer structures serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as evidenced by the Specification (Figs. 1-3; [0034-0037], wherein the network is the Internet, the game apparatus is a smartphone, stationary or hand-held game apparatus, tablet terminal, mobile phone, personal computer, wearable terminal, or the like, the processor may be composed only of a CPU, or may be composed of a SoC, and the storage medium may be flash memory and a dynamic random access memory (DRAM); [0040], the display unit may be a television or the like). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 15-16 recite a game system and game processing method for performing the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. Accordingly, claims 15-16 are likewise not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 17-20 recite additional subject matter which further narrow or define the abstract idea embodied in the representative claim. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, no claim contains “significantly more” to transform the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-14 and 17-20 are also not patent eligible.
Acknowledgments
No prior art is provided for claims 1-20. 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 of 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, “upon determining that the revival assistance object exists within the predetermined range: shifting the player object to a special state where the player object does not become damaged in a game stage when the revival assistance object is within the predetermined range; updating display of the player object in accordance with the player object having been shifted to the special state; returning the player object form the special state to a normal state where the player object can become damaged in the game stage, without terminating play of the game stage, if the player object comes into contact with the revival assistance object while the player object is in the special state; and updating display of the player object in accordance with the player object returning the normal state”.
However, claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as well as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, as presented above. Moreover, claims 10-13 further remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and claims 17-19 further remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), also presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. U.S. Pub. 2021/0339140 A1 – This reference teaches where a player (first character) enters into an incapacitated state based on damage received.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights