DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on August 7, 2026. Claims 1-19 are pending with no claims canceled, claims 1-16 currently amended, and claims 17-19 newly presented.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 7, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, the foreign patents annotated via a strikethrough were not considered due to various pages appearing to have omitted content or illegible content. For example, the foreign reference, JP 2005-185659 A, contains an abundance of empty pages with some of said pages containing line numbers and scattered text (See pages 2-20 of the example foreign reference). The omitted or illegible content appears to be caused by a rendering error preceding the transmission of the document to the Office.
For the purposes of providing a clear explanation of the issue, the Examiner has placed a screenshot of the lower half of page 10 of the foreign reference, JP 2005-185659 A, exactly as it appears in the file with a border around the image to differentiate the image from the white space of the current Office Action (See Image 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Foreign Reference Screenshot
Furthermore, the information disclosure statement filed October 7, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, the foreign reference, JP 2005-185659 A, fails to provide an English translation or explanation of relevance.
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 3-16 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.
The term “predetermined” in claims 3-8, 10, and 15-16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predetermined” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, for each recitation of the term “predetermined”, it is unclear when said parameter that is predetermined (e.g., predetermined game stage, predetermined server, and predetermined timing) must be determined. By utilizing the term “predetermined”, the parameters modified by the term “predetermined” (e.g., game stage, server, timing) are rendered indefinite.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on the claims above.
In claims 4, 11, and 14 the terminology “does not” is utilized. It is unclear if the Applicant intends to state that the condition that follows the terminology “does not” is a condition that can take place but simply does not take place, either by happenstance or direct intervention by players, game designers, or third-parties, which is the standard interpretation of “does not”, or if the Applicant intends to state that the condition that follows the terminology “does not” is a condition that cannot take place due to structural limitations. Specifically, as an example, in claim 11, “the second player object does not affect game play of the first player object in the normal state”. It is unclear whether the limitation is met as long as no interaction occurs between the two player objects – while the player objects maintain the ability to interact, or whether the Applicant intends to state the second player object cannot interact with the first player object in the normal state.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended to recite “cannot” rather than “does not” within the claims.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on the claims above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the predetermined server" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on the claims above.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is unclear and ambiguous. The claim recites, “the placement object … does not function as the revival assistance object when placed, and a function of the placement object as the revival assistance object is activated when the first player object comes into contact with the placement object.” The claim language is unclear and ambiguous as claim 4 depends on claim 3, which recites, “when the first player object places the placement object”. Specifically, claim 3 defines the placement object as an object placed by the first player object, which is a form of contact on the placement object by the first player object, then claim 4 states the placement object does not function as the revival assistance object when placed until the first player object comes into contact with the placement object; therefore, as recited, no situation exists where the placement object has not come into contact with the physical object since the placement object is defined by the placement object’s contact with the first physical object.
Claim 5 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 4 as outlined immediately above.
The term “affect” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “affect” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Utilizing the term “affect” results in the relationship between the player object and the other player object being indefinite as it is unclear how the other player object is structurally restricted from interacting with the player object when the player object is in the normal state.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on the claims above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 17-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a thorough search of the prior art fails to disclose any reference or references, which, taken alone or in combination, teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations:
“when a mistake made by the first player object occurs in a game stage, shifting the first player object to a special state where the first player object cannot become damaged in the game stage; returning the first player object from the special state to a normal state where the first player object can become damaged in the game stage, without terminating play of the game stage, if the first player object comes into contact with a revival assistance object, from a plurality of revival assistance objects including the second player object and a placement object placed in the game stage by the second player object, while the first player object is in the special state” (Claim 1).
Claims 3-16 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) issues identified in the Non-Final Office Action of May 8, 2026 have not been remedied and were not acknowledged in the Applicant’s remarks filed August 7, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments, filed August 7, 2026, with respect to the objection of claims 6, 7, and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 6, 7, and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the Remarks, filed August 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 15-16 (and the claims at which depend upon them) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the usage of the term, “predetermined”, the Applicant appears to have partially amended the claims to remove the term, but the Applicant fails to completely remove the term and/or acknowledge the rejection in the Remarks filed August 7, 2026; therefore, the rejection remains for the applicable claims.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 11, and 14-16 (and the claims at which depend upon them) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the usage of the term, “does not”, the Applicant appears to have partially amended the claims to remove the term, but the Applicant fails to completely remove the term and/or acknowledge the rejection in the Remarks filed August 7, 2026; therefore, the rejection remains for the applicable claims.
Regarding the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the limitation, “the predetermined server” lacking sufficient antecedent basis, the Applicant has failed to amend the claim and/or provide an argument against the rejection in the Remarks filed August 7, 2026; therefore, the rejection remains for the claim.
Regarding the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for unclear and ambiguous language, the Applicant has filed to amend the claims and/or provide an argument against the rejection in the Remarks filed August 7, 2026; therefore, the rejection remains for the claims.
Regarding the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for utilizing the relative term, “affect,” the Applicant has filed to amend the claim and/or provide an argument against the rejection in the Remarks filed August 7, 2026; therefore, the rejection remains for the claim.
Regarding the remainder of rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Non-Final Office Action filed May 8, 2026 that are not expressly acknowledged directly above or in the 35 U.S.C. 112 section above, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9-11 of the Remarks, filed August 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm 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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
