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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the limitation “displaying a virtual environment interface corresponding to a first virtual object, a virtual environment comprising a second virtual object.” Since the limitation “a virtual environment” comes after a comma and not a separate, distinct line, it is unclear whether the limitation is missing a word, e.g. “and a virtual environment,” refers back to the virtual environment interface and is missing the word “interface,” or whether the word interface is in error and the limitation should read “the virtual environment.”
Additionally, it is unclear whether the limitation actually means to state that a virtual environment comprises a second virtual object, as this implies that the entirety of the virtual environment is only the second virtual object. Because of the prior uncertainties, it is also unclear whether the virtual environment interface corresponding to the first virtual object is a separate environment to the virtual environment comprising the second virtual object.
The Examiner will assume that the limitation reads “displaying a virtual environment including a first virtual object and a second virtual object” until further clarification and correction is provided by applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 11, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganetakos et al (US 2011/0265041) in view of Dhunjishaw et al (US 2006/0234795).
Re claim 1, Ganetakos discloses displaying a virtual environment interface corresponding to multiple virtual objects (fig. 12); displaying an equipment suggestion region of the second virtual object in response to receiving an equipment suggestion trigger operation on the second virtual object (figs. 12-15, the item trading UI displays in response to a trade request, a trade request being considered an equipment suggestion trigger operation as it is used to suggest a transaction between two players as illustrated); and transmitting the suggestion information to the second account through the first account in response to receiving an equipment suggestion confirmation operation in the equipment suggestion region (figs. 12-15, once the first player places an item for trade and the trade is accepted, the item is traded between the players, see also par. [0068]).
However, while Ganetakos discloses multiple accounts having different masters (see above, multiple players are able to trade between their accounts) and an equipment suggestion editing operation in the equipment suggestion region ([0070] to [0073] describes the UI operation for trades), Ganetakos is silent on indicating an equipment configuration recommended by the first account to the second account.
Dhunjishaw teaches a game with online trading similar to Ganetakos, wherein an auction server is available for use by all players as an intermediary for trading items, the auction server able to recommend items for auction only usable by the character browsing the auction list ([0050]). Since the auction server is used as an intermediary for trades, the items listed by the auction server are considered held by a different account than the account of the player browsing.
It would have been obvious to implement the recommended items feature of Dhunjishaw with the item trading system of Ganetakos in order to assist players in trading for items that are useful by recommending items that are usable and more powerful than those already held by the character, increasing the usefulness and convenience of the trading system for all players.
Re claim 6, Ganetakos discloses displaying the suggestion information on a virtual environment picture in response to receiving the equipment suggestion confirmation operation in the equipment suggestion region ([[0064] and [0066]-[0067]).
Re claim 7, Ganetakos teaches receiving feedback information transmitted by the second account to the first account and displaying the feedback information comprising any one of suggestion accepted, rejected, or timeout ([0066]-[0067]).
Re claims 11, 16-17, and 20, see the above rejections. Ganetakos discloses a system used on a computer ([0004]) and therefore inherently disclose a processor and memory.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganetakos in view of Dhunjishaw as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of World of Warcraft (with reliance on WoW – Crafting and Transmog – Windy Weather), hereinafter WoW
Re claim 2, Ganetakos does not explicitly disclose a first virtual equipment set equipped on the second virtual object and a candidate second virtual equipment set, generating the suggestion information in response to receiving an editing operation on at least one equipment in the first virtual equipment set and the second virtual equipment set, and displaying the suggestion information in the equipment suggestion region.
WoW teaches UI elements in-game that displays the player’s currently equipped item (i.e. a first virtual equipment set equipped on a virtual object), and information about different equipment not equipped with information regarding potential upgrades, as shown in the below example image:
PNG
media_image1.png
432
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The player is therefore able to inspect equipment not currently worn by the player and see potential upgrades without needing to actually equip the item. It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine these UI elements with the trading systems of Ganetakos and Dhunjishaw in order to provide players inspecting items with more information, allowing them to make informed decisions whether to purchase, trade, or otherwise obtain a piece of equipment.
Re claim 3, WoW teaches suggesting unequipping the first virtual equipment equipped on the second virtual object (see the rejection to claim 2, the UI displays stat changes that occur when replacing the compared item which would necessarily require unequipping the currently equipped item in order to receive the stat changes).
Re claim 4, WoW teaches the reference information is determined equipment information of the second virtual object and equipment information of another virtual object, the another virtual object comprises a virtual object in a same team as the second virtual object (see above, the currently equipped item is on the same team as the player); and using edited reference information as the suggestion information in response to receiving an editing operation on the reference information in the equipment suggestion region, with WoW allowing the player to check multiple pieces of equipment for comparison, see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
437
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
425
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 5, see the rejections above. WoW has been discussed regarding displaying equipped equipment and an equipment suggestion. As shown, the player is able to display the equipment suggestion for any equipped item or potential item to equip, therefore this action of inspection and comparison is considered a trigger operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights