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 § 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, 14, and 19 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.
Regarding Claim 4, “detecting whether third prompt information of the second type is displayed in the second display region; and when the third prompt information is not displayed in the second display region, displaying the second prompt information in the second display region while the third prompt information is displayed” implies that either the third prompt information is both displayed and not displayed simultaneously, or that the third prompt information is displayed elsewhere when not displayed in the second display region. As a result, it is unclear where the third prompt information is displayed, or if it is displayed at all in association with the second prompt information being displayed in the second display region. For examination purposes, the “third prompt information” is considered to not be displayed while the second prompt information is being displayed in the second display region.
Claim 14 and 19, being similar in scope to Claim 4, result in similar indefiniteness due to claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IGN (Titanfall 2 Training Tutorial Teaches You The Basics).
Regarding Claim 1, IGN teaches an information prompt method in a virtual scene (the video displays tutorial gameplay of Titanfall 2, which being a video game, is a virtual scene), the method comprising:
Displaying, by processing circuitry (inherent to displaying a virtual scene on a screen),
A virtual scene interface comprising at least two display regions (At time 3:59, there is a display area in the bottom left (ammo count and current gun), and near the center (tutorial messages),
Each region being configured to display a different type of prompt information (At time 3:59, there is a display area in the bottom left (ammo count and current gun), and near the center (tutorial messages). Notes: The broadest reasonable interpretation of “prompt information” is any information (image or text) that prompts an interaction in the virtual scene; the ammo count and gun information results in the user operating the avatar in accordance with how much ammo they have and the gun’s capabilities, or may prompt the user to use utility devices, such as a grenade, as illustrated at time 3:59),
Wherein a number of the at least two display regions correspond to a number of types of prompt information to be displayed on the virtual scene interface (At time 3:59, there is a display area in the bottom left (ammo count and current gun), and near the center (tutorial messages). Notes: There are two main display regions, which display two types of prompt information. The tutorial messages are clearly a different type of prompt information than the prompt information of the ammo count and current gun, where one display region displays the tutorial messages, and the other display region displays the ammo count and gun);
Displaying first prompt information in a first display region of the at least two display regions corresponding to a first type of prompt information (time 3:59, bottom left (ammo/gun/utility prompt information); and
Displaying, when a display time point of second prompt information reaches a preset threshold, the second prompt information in a second display region of the at least two display regions corresponding to a second type of prompt information (time 0:00-0:08: the second display region displays the second type of prompt information (tutorial messages) a predetermined amount of time after the tutorial starts).
IGN does not teach that the number of the at least two display regions is based on a number of types of prompt information.
However, it is well known in the art, especially with regards to video game environments, that different display areas of a virtual scene, should correspond to certain types of prompt information, such that the number of display regions for prompt information should be based on the number of types of prompt information.
An established motivation in the art is to improve ease of use for a viewer or user of a virtual scene. A general good practice in the art is to group relevant information together in display areas (as demonstrated by IGN at time 3:59, where the two display areas have associated types of information prompts). Basing the number of display areas on the number of types of prompt information is a common practice in the development of virtual scenes (ex. video games), as it results in distinct prompt information types being displayed in areas that are distinguishable from other areas that display different prompt information types.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the number of display regions based on the number of types of prompt information; Doing so would yield the predictable result of a virtual scene that displays prompt information of a certain type in one display region for ease of viewing.
Regarding Claim 2, The method according to Claim 1 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
generating the second prompt information according to a running progress of the virtual scene and a display progress of the first prompt information (time 2:23-2:25: after picking up the Kraber (reflected in the first prompt information display progress, which shows the Kraber gun outline and new ammo values, as well as reflected in the running progress of the virtual scene, as the avatar is shown picking up the Kraber), the second display area displays the second prompt information accordingly (“damage all targets in the firing range to continue”)), and
Determining an association between the first prompt information and the second prompt information (the association is inherent, as upon picking up the Kraber between 2:23-2:25 (reflected in the first prompt information regarding ammo and the gun), the user is instructed to use the Kraber to damage all targets in the firing range, indicating that the first prompt information influences the display of the second prompt information).
Regarding Claim 3, the method according to Claim 2 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches detecting the display progress of the first prompt information (time 2:23-2:25: after picking up the Kraber, the display of the first prompt information (ammo and gun) changes to the values displayed); and determining the display time point of the second prompt information when the display progress of the first prompt information reaches a target progress (time 2:23-2:25: the second prompt information is displayed a set time after the first prompt information changes the displayed values to that of the Kraber. Notes: The broadest reasonable interpretation of the display time point is when the second prompt information is displayed. Therefore, since the second prompt information is displayed conditionally after the first prompt information is changed, the display time point is determined when the first prompt information changes (reaches a target progress)).
Regarding Claim 4, the method according to Claim 2 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
when the second prompt information is not associated with the first prompt information (time 0:10-0:15 shows that the tutorial messages are unrelated to first prompt since the first prompt information is not currently being displayed),
detecting whether third prompt information of the second type is displayed in the second display region (time 0:10-0:15 shows the third prompt information (default control acknowledgment) being displayed in the second display region, wherein displaying the third prompt information inherently results in detection of the third prompt information); and
when the third prompt information is not displayed in the second display region, displaying the second prompt information in the second display region while the third prompt information is displayed (time 0:14-0:15 shows that when the third prompt information is not displayed, the second prompt information is displayed. Notes: as established previously, the language is being interpreted such that the third prompt information is not being displayed while the second prompt information is being displayed, in the case that the third prompt information is not displayed in the second region. Refer to the rejection of Claim 4 over 112(b)).
Regarding Claim 5, the method according to Claim 4 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches the method wherein the method comprises:
displaying the third prompt information in the second display region, wherein the second prompt information and the third prompt are displayed in different locations of the second display region (time 0:10-0:15 shows the second prompt information displayed centrally near the bottom of the second display region, while the third prompt information is displayed over a larger area centered at a different location of the second display area).
Regarding Claim 6, the method according to Claim 5 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
Obtaining priority parameters corresponding to the prompt information (time 0:10-0:15 clearly demonstrates that the third prompt information regarding the default look control displays over the second prompt information regarding the standard tutorial messages, which inherently involves priority weight; time 0:40-0:50 demonstrates that the display of priority information is in the order of generation time, as the generation time of jump prompt was earlier than the generation time of the auto run prompt. Notes: priority parameters, in their broadest reasonable interpretation, is something that results in an entity having priority over another entity. Priority is therefore inherent to the control of what prompt information is displayed, where prompt information can be prioritized based either on the generation time as demonstrated in time 0:40-0:50, or by prompt weight, as demonstrated by time 0:10-0:15);
Wherein the priority parameter includes at least one of:
A generation time of the prompt information (time 0:40-0:50 demonstrates that the display of priority information is in the order of generation time, as the generation time of jump prompt was earlier than the generation time of the auto run prompt) and
A prompt weight set for the prompt information (time 0:10-0:15 clearly demonstrates that the third prompt information regarding the default look control displays over the second prompt information regarding the standard tutorial messages, which inherently involves priority weight); and
Determining the prompt priorities corresponding to each of the prompt information (inherent to the display of the prompt information, since time 0:40-0:50 and time 0:10-0:15 demonstrate that priority was used to determine what prompt information was displayed based on the type of priority)
Regarding Claim 7, the method according to Claim 6 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
Comparing the prompt priorities of the third prompt information and the second prompt information (comparing prompt priority is inherently performed when displaying second prompt information or third prompt information based on priority); and
Based on the prompt priority of the third prompt information being higher than the prompt priority of the second prompt information, stopping the displaying of the second prompt information in the second display region, and displaying the third prompt information in the second display region (time 0:10-0:15 clearly demonstrates the second prompt information being displayed, before the third prompt information regarding the default look control displays over the second prompt information regarding the standard tutorial messages in the second display area such that the second prompt information is no longer displayed, indicating that the third prompt information has a higher priority than the second prompt information).
Regarding Claim 8, the method according to Claim 7 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
Based on the prompt priority of the third prompt information being lower than the prompt priority of the second prompt information, stopping the displaying of the third prompt information in the second display region, and displaying the second prompt information in the second display region (time 0:10-0:15 shows the third prompt information over the second prompt information (higher priority), before subsequently showing the second prompt information when the third prompt information is no longer displayed (priority is inherently adjusted such that the second prompt information has higher priority and is subsequently displayed)).
IGN does not explicitly teach that on the display of the second prompt being completed, the third prompt information is displayed again in the second display region.
However, IGN teaches displaying prompt information after the completion of the display of other prompt information in the second display area (time 0:10-0:15 shows that a prompt information is displayed early on in the second display area, before another prompt information is displayed instead, and concluding with the other prompt information finishing its display and the initial prompt information continues being displayed).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the concept of continuing to display prompt information after other prompt information has finished displaying is well known in the art, and can easily be applied to any visual elements in a virtual scene.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of continuing to display an initial prompt information after the display of other prompt information has finished to any prompt information present in IGN; Doing so would yield the predictable result of thorough display control of prompt information in a virtual scene.
Regarding Claim 9, the method according to Claim 1 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
Determining a virtual object in the virtual scene that matches the second prompt information (time 2:23 shows a weapon (Kraber) that matches the second prompt information to pick up a weapon); and
Displaying the second prompt information in the second display region, wherein the second display region is a region in which the virtual object is located (time 2:23 shows a weapon (Kraber) that matches the second prompt information to pick up a weapon, where the second prompt information is displayed in front of the weapon when the weapon is within the second display region).
Claim 11, being similar in scope to Claim 1, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12, being similar in scope to Claim 2, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13, being similar in scope to Claim 3, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14, being similar in scope to Claim 4, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15, being similar in scope to Claim 5, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16, being similar in scope to Claim 1, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17, being similar in scope to Claim 2, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18, being similar in scope to Claim 3, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19, being similar in scope to Claim 4, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20, being similar in scope to Claim 5, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IGN as modified in view of CodePlanStudio (Unity UI Tutorial 2020 – How To Make Scrollable UI Text, Youtube, 2020)
Regarding Claim 10, the method according to Claim 1 is rejected over IGN.
IGN teaches the method wherein the method further comprises:
Displaying the first prompt information in a first display region (time 3:59, bottom left (ammo/gun/utility prompt information); and
Displaying the second prompt information in a second display region (time 3:59, center (tutorial prompt information).
IGN does not teach displaying the first prompt information at a first display scrolling speed and displaying the second prompt information at a second display scrolling speed, wherein the first display scrolling speed corresponds to the first type and the second scrolling speed corresponds to the second type.
However, CodePlanStudio teaches displaying prompt information at a scrolling speed corresponding to a type of prompt information (time 6:30-7:10 demonstrates how prompt information can be set to scroll in a virtual scene using Unity, as well as that the scrolling speed can be adjusted).
It is well known in the art that characteristics involving a UI component, such as prompt information, can be customized independently from one another, and that the scroll speed of one prompt information in one display area can be set differently from the scroll speed of another prompt information in a different display area. A common motivation for assigning different scroll speeds for different prompts is prompt length, which is often affected by the type of prompt information. Doing so can also yield visual appeal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the display of the first prompt information in a first display area and the display of the second prompt information in a second display area of IGN with the method of scrolling of CodePlanStudio; Doing so would yield the predictable result of the first prompt information in a first display area having an associated first scrolling speed, and a second prompt information in a second display area having an associated second scrolling speed, improving the efficiency and appeal of the display of prompt information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND CHUN LAM LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at 571-272-7667. 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.
/RAYMOND CHUN LAM LI/Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights