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 .
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, 8, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an electronic apparatus comprising: a display; at least one memory storing at least one instruction; and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify at least one region corresponding to at least one type of figure in a game image output through the display, identify at least one candidate region having at least a predetermined size among the at least one region, identify feature information corresponding to the at least one candidate region based on pixel information corresponding to the at least one candidate region, and identify one of the at least one candidate region as a mini-map region based on the feature information. The underlined portion above are directed towards the abstract idea of a mental process. That is each of the above identify steps can be done merely by someone observing. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is only applied to a technological environment, as opposed to the other dependent claims not listed above that then actually do something with the information once it has been gathered. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements to the claim are basic computer parts which the Supreme Court in Alice determined is not enough to bring an abstract idea into patent eligibility.
Dependent claim 8 just adds a further abstract idea and independent claims 11 and 16 are rejected in a similar manner as above.
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 4-6, 14, 15, 19, and 20 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.
With regard to claims 4, 14, and 19 these claims include the phrase, “”based on the at least one mini-map region,” (emphasis added). However there is no antecedent basis for this as previously it is NOT “at least one” rather it is “identify ONE of the at least one candidate region as a mini-map,” (emphasis added). Or in other words in the independent claims one, and only one, mini-map is identified. All dependent claims of claims 4, 14, and 19 are rejected as depending upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0100652 to Jang.
With regard to claim 1, Jang discloses an electronic apparatus comprising: a display (0013); at least one memory storing at least one instruction (0013; 0147); and at least one processor (0013) configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify at least one region corresponding to at least one type of figure in a game image output through the display (0019; 0025; 0030), identify at least one candidate region having at least a predetermined size among the at least one region (0019; 0025; 0030), identify feature information corresponding to the at least one candidate region based on pixel information corresponding to the at least one candidate region(0019; 0025; 0030, 0078), and identify one of the at least one candidate region as a mini-map region based on the feature information (0019; 0025; 0030).
With regard to claim 2, Jang discloses a communication interface, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: adjust a size of the mini-map region based on resolution information corresponding to an external device communicably linked with the electronic apparatus, and transmit an image corresponding to the size-adjusted mini-map region to the external device via the communication interface (0108-0117).
With regard to claim 3¸Jang discloses wherein the at least one memory stores a predetermined algorithm for improving an image quality, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: based on the size of the at least one mini-map region being adjusted, update the image corresponding to the mini-map region based on information stored in the at least one memory, and transmit the updated image to the external device via the communication interface (fig. 4; 0108-0117).
With regard to claim 4, Jang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: based on the at least one mini-map region being identified, adjust a size of the game image to a first size and adjust a size of an image corresponding to the mini-map region to a second size, and control the display to display the size-adjusted game image in a first region of the display and the size-adjusted image corresponding to the mini-map region in a second region of the display, and wherein the second region is a region adjacent to the mini-map region among a plurality of regions of the display excluding the first region (fig. 4; 0108-0117).
With regard to claim 5, Jang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify a plurality of mini-map regions based on the feature information, based on identifying the plurality of mini-map regions, adjust a size of a first image corresponding to a first mini-map region among the plurality of mini-map regions to the second size and adjust a size of a second image corresponding to a second mini-map region among the plurality of mini-map regions to a third size, and control the display to display the size-adjusted first image in the second region of the display and the size-adjusted second image in a third region of the display, and wherein the third region is a region adjacent to the second mini-map region among the plurality of regions of the display excluding the first region and the second region (fig. 4; 0108-0117).
With regard to claim 6¸Jang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to control the display to display a predetermined image in a remaining region of the mini-map region excluding the first region and the second region (fig. 4).
With regard to claim 7, Jang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify a region of interest in an image corresponding to the mini-map region, and based on identifying the region of interest, update the image corresponding to the mini-map region such that the region of interest is distinguished from a remaining region of the mini-map region excluding the region of interest (fig. 4; wherein points on the map are shown and any point on the map could be a “region of interest”).
With regard to claim 8, Jang discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to identify at least one region corresponding to the at least one type of figure in a region beyond a predetermined pixel distance from a center point of the game image (fig. 4).
Claims 11-20 are mirrored claims to claims 1-5 and are rejected in like manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Jang does not go into the details required by claim 9. Furthermore, it does not appear according to the prior art of record that such would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights