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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to for containing informal language. The term “it” is not in accordance with proper claim drafting conventions, as it is vague and conversational, lacking the precision and formality required for patent claims. Claim language should clearly and concisely define the scope of the invention without relying on informal expressions.
The Examiner recommends replacing “if it is determined that the revival assistance object exists” with “if the processor determines that the revival assistance object exists” to obviate the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to for containing informal language. The phrase, (emphasis added) “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” is not in accordance with proper claim drafting conventions, as it is awkward and narrative, lacking the precision and formality required for patent claims. Claim language should clearly and concisely define the scope of the invention without relying on informal expressions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to as the comma following “in the normal state” is unnecessary due to the following clause being a dependent clause rather than an independent clause.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Although, the disclosure sufficiently discloses the processor transmits “placement information including at least position information of the placement object … when the player object places the placement object”; however, the disclosure fails to adequately disclose how the processor utilizes “placement information stored in the predetermined server” to place the placement object when said placement information isn’t transmitted to the predetermined server until the player object has actively placed the placement object.
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 1-16 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 “mistake” in claims 1, 6, and 14-16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mistake” 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. Although, the Specification provides examples of a mistake event (e.g., [0071] lostness), the defining of a term purely through examples renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (i.e., there may be other forms of mistake events not disclosed), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable.
Furthermore, as recited, the term “mistake” is overly broad as a mistake could be a mistake of a multitude of parties, such as players, Non-Playable Characters (NPCs), or a third-party. Moreover, as recited, the term “mistake” may refer to a mistake in the virtual world or real world as the only limiting factor is “occurs in a predetermined game stage”, which does not exclude real world mistakes as this verbiage includes the interpretation that a player logged into a predetermined game stage (e.g., login screen, lobby, gameplay) is “in a predetermined game stage”. Moreover, as recited, the term “mistake” may refer to a technically-defined anti-goal (i.e., a known process that is detrimental to the progress of gameplay completion), such as a player being killed by an enemy character, or a subjectively-defined anti-goal, such as choice regret, mistake of judgement, or erroneous assumption of value.
All claim limitations depend on the occurrence of the mistake; therefore, by utilizing the relative term, all claim limitations are rendered indefinite.
The term “predetermined” in claims 1, 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.
In claims 1, 4, 6, 11, and 14-16, 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 1, when in the special state, “the player object does not become damaged”. It is unclear whether the limitation is met as long as no damage is dealt to the player object – while the player object maintains the ability to take damage, or whether the Applicant intends to state the player object cannot become damaged in the game stage when in the special state.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended to recite “cannot” rather than “does not” within the claims.
The terms “game stage” and “predetermined game stage” are used in the claims and specification in a manner that is unclear and seemingly interchangeable. It is ambiguous whether these terms refer to the same entity or distinct entities. Furthermore, it is unclear whether “game stage” or “predetermined game stage” refers to different structural limitations or whether the terms are interchangeable. This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim uncertain, as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the roles or relationships of the “game stage” and the “predetermined game stage” within the context of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the term “game stage” is synonymous with the term “predetermined game stage” as no evidence can be found for the differentiation of the terms.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 16, the claim recites, (emphasis added), “if the player object comes into contact with any revival assistance object including the other player object and a placement object”. As recited, it is unclear whether the “other player object” and the “placement object” are examples of a “revival assistance object” (therefore optional choices) or whether the “other player object” and the “placement object” are required together to define a revival assistance object.
Under the interpretation that the “other player object” and the “placement object” are intended as exemplary, the revival assistance object is rendered indefinite as it includes elements not actually disclosed, thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable.
Under the interpretation that the “other player object” and the “placement object” are required together to define a revival assistance object, subsequent claims may be rendered indefinite as it is unclear whether the Applicant intends to require a second player to be present in all situations where a revival assistance object is utilized.
Based on the ability for the other player object and the placement object to exist without the presence of the other, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intends to list the other player object and the placement object as examples of a revival assistance object.
In relation to the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 16 immediately above, claim 9 utilizes the same terminology in the recitation, “the revival assistance object includes the ghost character”. The Examiner seeks similar clarification.
Regarding claim 2, the claim introduces numerous interpretations that result in an unclear and ambiguous meaning for the claim. Specifically, the claim recites, “the player object is not returned to the normal state if the player object in the special state comes into contact with the placement object placed by the player object.” As recited, the claim lacks sufficient antecedent basis for “the placement object placed by the player object.” However, claim 1 recites, (emphasis added), “a placement object placed in the game stage by the other player object”. It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to recite “the player object” rather than the “other player object”; therefore, lacking sufficient antecedent basis, or whether the Applicant intended to recite “the other player object”, which introduces a direct contradiction to claim 1 as claim 1 states the player object is returned from the special state to the normal state upon contact with the placement object while claim 2 states the player object is not returned from the special state to the normal state upon contact with the placement object.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the predetermined server" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 introduces a placement object placed by the other player object and claim 3 introduces a placement object placed by the player object. Subsequent claims, such as claim 4, which depend on claims 1 and 3, either directly or indirectly, simply uses the term “placement object” without identifying whether the placement object recited is referring to the placement object as placed by the player object or the placement object as placed by the other player object.
The Examiner implores the Applicant utilize labels within the claims that clearly distinguish elements of the claimed invention from the other various elements.
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 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 player object places the placement object”. Specifically, claim 3 defines the placement object as an object placed by the player object, which is a form of contact on the placement object by the player object, then claim 4 states the placement object does not function as the revival assistance object when placed until the player object comes into contact with the placement object; therefore, as recited, no situation may exist 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 physical object.
Claim 5 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 4 as outlined immediately above.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 13, the claims are unclear and ambiguous. The claims transition from “any” revival assistance object as recited in claim 1 to “the” revival assistance object. It is unclear whether the Applicant is now referring to a specific revival assistance object or intends to refer to any revival assistance object as introduced in claim 1.
The Examiner recommends amending claims 1, 15, and 16 to introduce “a revival assistance object” and recite “the revival assistance object” for all subsequent recitations of the term. From the Examiner’s perspective, no meaning is lost in this modification.
Claim 6 recites “a mistake”, yet the claim depends on claim 1, which recites “a mistake”. It is unclear whether the claim is intending to recite a new and separate mistake or whether the claim is referring to the same mistake as introduced in claim 1; therefore, the recited mistake(s) in the claims is/are indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the claims to refer to the same mistake.
The term “gradually shortened” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually shortened” 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. As a result of using the term, “gradually shortened”, the rate at which the predetermined time is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “another player”, yet the claim indirectly depends on claim 1, which recites “another player”. It is unclear whether the claim is intending to recite a new and separate player or whether the claim is referring to the same player as introduced in claim 1; therefore, the recited player(s) in the claims is/are indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the recitations of a “player object” are synonymous with a label of “Player 1” and the recitations of “another player” and “the other player” are synonymous with a label of “Player 2”. The numbering of the players in this Examiner’s note is not intended to state only two players exist. The numbering of the players is intended to clearly distinguish one player from a separate player.
Regarding claim 10, which depends directly on claim 9, the claim is unclear and ambiguous. Claim 10 recites, (emphasis added), “record an action content of the player object in a predetermined period as the replay data”; however, claim 9 recites, (emphasis added), “the ghost character acting on the basis of replay data for replaying a play content of another player”. It is unclear whether the replay data refers to content of the player object or the another player.
In the situation where the Applicant intended to introduce a new replay data in claim 10 of the player object (not the another player), the replay data introduced in claim 10 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Specifically, the processor records “an action content … as the replay data”, then, in the following step, the processor acquires the replay data. It is unclear what happens to the replay data (e.g., deletion or overwritten) that requires the processor to re-acquire the replay data.
The Examiner notes the recording of the replay data appears to be of the player object and the acquiring of the replay data appears to be of another player; however, both forms of content are labeled as “the replay data”, which is unclear and ambiguous – resulting in the structure of the claimed invention being indefinite as it relates to the replay data.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pineda [US20210339140A1].
Regarding claim 1, Pineda discloses:
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 (Pineda, [0004], “executing a multiplayer gameplay session of a video game application where multiple players control in-game characters interacting within a virtual environment;”), the game program causing the processor to:
when a mistake occurs in a predetermined game stage, shift the player object to a special state where the player object does not become damaged in the game stage (Pineda, [0005], “The method further includes changing the first character from the incapacitated state to be preliminarily defeated based at least in part in response to at least one of: the first character remaining in the incapacitated state for a threshold quantity of elapsed time without recovering to the normal state or the first character receiving damage.”);
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 (Pineda, [0073], “the first character can be revived by a teammate who approaches and performs a revival interaction with the first character in the virtual world.”); and
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 (Pineda, [0078], “After the second threshold time expires at either blocks 223 or 227, the first character is changed from the preliminarily defeated state to an eliminated state at block 229.”).
Regarding claim 2, Pineda discloses:
The storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the player object is not returned to the normal state if the player object in the special state comes into contact with the placement object placed by the player object (Pineda, [0070], “For example, the first character may be restricted from using primary weapons but allowed to use secondary weapons in the incapacitated state. In some examples, while in the incapacitated state, the first character can use one or more items not available for use during the normal state, such as a shield or a revival item.” In these examples, the first character (i.e., player object) is in the incapacitated state (i.e., special state) and comes into contact with the secondary weapon and shield (i.e., placement objects) placed in the first character’s hand. Neither object would revive the first character from the incapacitated state to the normal state.).
Regarding claim 3, Pineda discloses:
The storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the game program further causes the processor to:
transmit placement information including at least position information of the placement object, to the predetermined server when the player object places the placement object (Pineda, [0060], “the game state information 116A, 116B, 116C can separately or collectively identify the state of the game applications 110A, 110B, 110C at a specific point in time, such as a character position, character orientation, character action, game level attributes, unit locations, item locations, and other information contributing to a state of the game.”); and
place the placement object based on the placement information stored in the predetermined server, in the game stage (As is standard in gaming, the system of Pineda utilizes the placement information for rendering the item in the specific location.), and
the revival assistance object includes the placement object placed on the basis of the placement information stored in the predetermined server (See citation above from [0060] of Pineda.).
Regarding claim 4, Pineda discloses:
The storage medium according to claim 3,
wherein the placement object placed on the basis of the placement information stored in the predetermined server does not function as the revival assistance object when placed (Pineda, [0110], “When the first player arrives within a threshold distance of the inventory container 801 containing the respawn activation item, the first player can be prompted to provide a user input, such as pressing a particular button, to acquire the respawn activation item.”), and
a function of the placement object as the revival assistance object is activated when the player object comes into contact with the placement object (Pineda, [0110], “The first player can then provide the prompted user input to interact with inventory container 801 to obtain a respawn activation item (such as described with respect to block 225 of FIG. 2).”).
In other words, Pineda discloses when the respawn activation item (i.e., revival assistance object/placement object) is first dropped, the respawn activation item does not provide the typical functions of a respawn activation item, such as respawning/reviving a character. Then the first player (i.e., player object) can retrieve the respawn activation item without using the respawn activation item. Afterwards, the character can come into contact with the respawn activation item via their inventory to activate the functions of the respawn activation item.
Regarding claim 5, Pineda discloses:
The storage medium according to claim 3,
wherein, at a predetermined timing, when no placement object exists in the game stage, the placement object based on the placement information stored in the predetermined server is placed in the game stage (Pineda, [0034], “The respawn system can generate a respawn activation item based at least in part in response to a preliminary defeat of a first player.” and Pineda, [0076], “The inventory items can be made available at or within a threshold distance of a location in the virtual environment where the first character is preliminarily defeated in response to the preliminary defeat of the first character.”).
Regarding claim 6, Pineda discloses:
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 (Pineda, [0101], “The first character 506 has approached within a threshold distance of the second character 501 and is reviving the second character 501.”); and
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 (As cited above, the first character and the second character are within a threshold distance of each other in such situation where the second character is in the special state.).
Regarding claim 7, Pineda discloses:
The storage medium according to claim 6,
wherein the player object is operable while being in the special state (Pineda, [0070], “a different set of movement actions, inventory items, and/or abilities can be made available for the first character to use while in the incapacitated state. For example, the first character can be restricted from walking, running, jumping, crouching, and standing. Instead, the first character may be able to crawl slowly and turn.”),
a state where the player object is in the special state continues for a predetermined time (Pineda, [0078], “At block 221, an elimination timer can optionally be started in response to the preliminary defeat of the first player. The elimination timer can start counting toward a second threshold time during which the respawn activation item can be acquired by teammates and/or the first character can be respawned.”), 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 (Pineda, [0078], “After the second threshold time expires at either blocks 223 or 227, the first character is changed from the preliminarily defeated state to an eliminated state at block 229.”).
Regarding claim 11, Pineda discloses:
The storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the other player object does not affect the player object in the normal state (Pineda, In a scenario where the other player object is a team member of the player object – when the player object is in the normal state, the other player object is not inflicting damage on the player object and not reviving the player object.).
Regarding claim 14, Pineda discloses:
The storage medium according to claim 1,
wherein, when the player object is returned to the normal state,
the player object in the normal state is placed at a position where the mistake does not occur immediately after the player object is returned to the normal state (Pineda, [0006], “changing a first character to a preliminarily defeated state at a first location in the virtual environment … receiving third user inputs from any member of the first team causing any character to use the respawn activation item at a respawn location different from the first location; and in response to using the respawn activation item at the respawn location, respawning the first character at the respawn location.”).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the claims share similar limitations to claim 1. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding the limitation requiring a predetermined condition to be satisfied in addition to the player object remaining out of contact with any revival assistance object, see claim 7 for citations on rejection. As seen in claim 7, if the player object has not come into contact with the revival assistance object within a predetermined time frame (i.e., predetermined condition), then the game stage is terminated for the player object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pineda.
Regarding claim 8, Pineda discloses shifting from a normal state to a special state with a predetermined time threshold, as cited in the section above. Pineda does not disclose gradually shortening the predetermined time as the number of times the shift to the special state increases. However, adaptive difficulty scaling – making penalties/timers stricter with repeated failures – is a long-known game-design technique (e.g., reducing extra lives, accelerating enemies, shortening timers on repeated attempts). Pineda discloses timers; making the timers adaptive based on repeated failures is a routine difficulty-tuning choice within the skillset of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pineda and Hightower [US20030054869A1].
Regarding claim 9, which depends directly on claim 6, Pineda discloses a game program with various characters, states, and objects, such as the revival assistance object, as cited above, but Pineda does not disclose a ghost character acting on the basis of replay data.
Hightower, however, discloses:
wherein the game program further causes the processor to cause a ghost character to appear in the game stage (Hightower, [0034], “a “ghost” vehicle, such as ghost vehicle 910 (FIG. 9), is displayed as a lighter and translucent version of a player vehicle”),
the ghost character acting on the basis of replay data for replaying a play content of another player (Hightower, [0057], “However, if the player did beat the free game time, as determined at decision state 804, function 240 moves to state 806. At state 806, function 240 stores the ghost data … The buffer data, which is from the queue data structure 330, is supplemented with the race finish time for the course and the name of the player that traversed the course.”), and
the revival assistance object (as taught by Pineda) includes the ghost character related to the other player in addition to the other player object (as taught by Hightower).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Hightower to Pineda would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Hightower to the teachings of Pineda would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such game development features into similar systems/methods. Further, introducing ghost characters to Pineda with replay data presented accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow a player to continue playing alongside another character while allowing the other character’s player to move on within the gameplay.
Regarding claim 10, Pineda/Hightower discloses:
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 (Hightower, [0057], “However, if the player did beat the free game time, as determined at decision state 804, function 240 moves to state 806. At state 806, function 240 stores the ghost data, which was temporarily stored to a buffer queue in function 210, to the persistent storage 112, which in one embodiment, functions as a recorded course storage.”);
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 (Hightower, [0035], “After the ghost vehicle 910 is displayed at one point of time on the track 950”); and
cause the ghost character to act on the basis of the replay data acquired from the predetermined server (Hightower, [0035], “After the ghost vehicle 910 is displayed at one point of time on the track 950, process 200 advances to a decision state 222 to determine if the present game has completed. If not, process 200 returns to function 204 to display the player vehicle at a subsequent time to the previous time of display.”).
Regarding claim 12, which depends directly on claim 11, Pineda discloses a game program with various characters and states as cited above, but Pineda does not disclose displaying objects in a semi-transparent manner. In the disclosure of Pineda, characters are displayed in an opaque manner regardless of the state.
Hightower, however, discloses:
wherein the other player object is displayed in a semi-transparent manner when the player object is in the normal state (Hightower, [0034], “a “ghost” vehicle, such as ghost vehicle 910 (FIG. 9), is displayed as a lighter and translucent version of a player vehicle”).
See claim 9 regarding rationale to combine Pineda and Hightower. Visual differentiation of interactive versus non-interactive objects is a long-standing UI/UX design principle in video games. Combining Hightower’s translucent ghost rendering for non-interactive states with Pineda’s system’s two-state mechanic, which integrates opaque renderings, yields the claimed display rule.
Furthermore, matters relating to ornamentation only, which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The decision to display an object as translucent or opaque is a matter of aesthetic design changes. MPEP 2144.04, Section I has been reproduced below for ease of reference:
“In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.). But see Ex parte Hilton, 148 USPQ 356 (Bd. App. 1965) (Claims were directed to fried potato chips with a specified moisture and fat content, whereas the prior art was directed to french fries having a higher moisture content. While recognizing that in some cases the particular shape of a product is of no patentable significance, the Board held in this case the shape (chips) is important because it results in a product which is distinct from the reference product (french fries).).”
Regarding claim 13, which depends directly on claim 12, Pineda/Hightower discloses visual emphasis on items of importance, such as respawn activation item icons (Pineda, [0106], “the second character's respawn activation item icon 701 can be seen over walls or other opaque objects. The second player can provide user inputs to ping the icon 701, making the icon 701 and the first location more noticeable to team members. When pinged, the icon 701 can animate, flash, make sound effects, and the like.” and Pineda, [0114], “The second player or any preliminarily defeated player on the team can ping the respawn location map icon 903 and/or the respawn location interface icon 904 to make them more noticeable to team members, such as by briefly animating or highlighting the icon and/or playing a sound.”).
Matters relating to ornamentation only, which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The decision to adjust saturation of the game stage to emphasize or de-emphasize specific objects does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See claim 12 directly above for the reproduction of MPEP 2144.04, Section I.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights