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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: [“state synchronizing unit for”; multi-user experience unit for” and “computing unit for” in claims 10-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See figure 3 and pages 21-25 for structure and algorithm.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
In claim 5, the phrase “all object state” is indefinite.
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.
Claims 8, 14 and 19 are 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. The specification fails to disclose how “the computation results being information on at least one of an A* pathfinding agent or a machine learning-power agent”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kavallierou (US 20200346109).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 15, Kavallierou discloses a system comprising: receiving user information from at least one user, the user information comprising at least one of an object state or visual effect data related to a game (see paragraph 0041; 0048 and 0050); determining, based on a channel of the game in which the at least one user is playing, whether the user information of the at least one user requires cloud computing for processing (paragraph 0043 and 0045)); and in response to determining that the user information requires cloud computing, transmitting the user information of the at least one user to a computing server for processing the user information to generate graphics-related results for the channel (paragraphs 0043 and 0049). [regarding claims 10 and 15, see Fig. 6, server (604). It is also noted that the “sever” is --an intended use limitation--].
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 16, see paragraph 0049.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 12 and 17 see paragraph 0051.
Regarding claim 5, see paragraph 6.
Regarding claim 6, see paragraph 0049.
Regarding claim 9, see paragraphs 0027 and 0067.
Regarding claim 20, see Fig. 6.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavallierou(US 20200346109) in view of Stowe et al. (WO 02/17044 A2).
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 18, Kavallierou teaches wherein the object state comprises at least one of animation state (see Figs 1-4 and paragraph 0006). However, Kavallierou does not the request is for a rendering process to be performed by the computing server, the rendering process being at least one of global illumination, planar reflection, or probe reflection. Nonetheless, in a similar field of endeavor, Stowe et al. discloses (pages 38-39) that it is well known in the rendering process to utilize global illumination of render images of scene (see paragraph 39). Giving the teachings of Stowe et al., a person having ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to modify Kavallierou such that the request is for a rendering process to be performed by the computing server, wherein the rendering process being at least one of global illumination, so as to improve the visibility and quality of virtual scene.
Claim(s) 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavallierou(US 20200346109) in view of Stowe et al. (WO 02/17044 A2) further in view of US 20230109654 (Benedetto et al.)
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 19, the combined teachings of Kavallierou and Stowe et al. (discussed in regards claims 7, 13 and 18, above) does not disclose the computation results being information on at least one of an A* pathfinding agent or a machine learning – powered agent.
In a similar filed of endeavor, Benedetto discloses a gaming system applying the correction value to the controller input to increase an accuracy of the controller input. Benedetto et al. further teaching that the AI model may also use a machine learning model that is used to predict the correction and gearing values to apply to the controller input of the user to help the user increase an accuracy of the controller input when performing an action in the game.
Given the teachings of Benedetto, a person having ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to modify the combined system of Kavallierou and Stowe et al. such that computation results being information on at least one of machine learning -powered agent generate visualization effects which maybe beneficial to the user when participating in the game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENTON B BURGESS whose telephone number is (571)272-3949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/GLENTON B BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights