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 Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first area and second area” (lines 3-4) should read “a first area and a second area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first area and second area” (lines 5-6) should read “a first area and a second area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first area and second area” (lines 4-5) should read “a first area and a second area”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 36-55 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.
Claim 36 recites “a first area and second area” (lines 3-4), “the first area” (line 4) and “the second area” (line 6). When two separate claim elements are introduced, each claim element should be separately introduced rather than introducing them as a claim element made up of multiple parts unless the claim element made up of multiple parts is only subsequently referred to. This prevents conf
Claims 46-53 are directed to “The computing device of claim 44”, however, claim 44 is directed to “The computer implemented method according to claim 36”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “The computing device of claim 44”. Claim 55 inherits this discrepancy by nature of its dependency on claim 50. Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art Rejection
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 36-55.
The closest prior art of record includes Ikonen et al., US 2016/0220907 A1 (hereinafter Ikonen); Yoshioka, US 2008/0132328 A1 (hereinafter Yoshioka); Shogun - Total War (hereinafter Shogun); and Bone, US 9,814,967 B1 (hereinafter Bone).
Ikonen discloses a device has a display which displays game objects (Ikonen [Abstract]). The device also has a user interface which is able to receive an input from a user to select one speed mode for the one or more game objects (Ikonen [Abstract]). A processor determines if one or more conditions are satisfied (Ikonen [Abstract]). If so, movement of at least one of the game objects is controlled when displayed on the display in dependence on the speed mode selected by the user input (Ikonen [Abstract]). Ikonen discloses wherein a user may lift the user finger from a touchscreen or the release of a pointer to indicate that the user is to exit the slower mode (Ikonen [0081]). Ikonen fails to explicitly disclose what the user touches to change the speed of the game objects.
Yoshioka teaches a game machine including, an operating portion, a signal detector, a prompter, a determination receiver and a speed changer (Yoshioka [Abstract]). The operating portion outputs a signal in accordance with a player's operation for proceeding a game (Yoshioka [Abstract]). The signal detector detects either a consecutive signal within a predetermined period of time or an intermittent signal within a predetermined period of time from the operating portion (Yoshioka [Abstract]). The prompter prompts a player to determine whether to change a speed of progress in the game when either the consecutive signal or the intermittent signal is detected (Yoshioka [Abstract]). The determination receiver receives a player's determination regarding the change of the speed of progress in the game (Yoshioka [Abstract]). The speed changer changes the speed of progress in the game in accordance with the player's determination when the player's determination is received (Yoshioka [Abstract]). Yoshioka teaches the use of a menu for changing the speed of progress in a game to be displayed on a display of the game machine (Yoshioka [0044] and [Fig. 6]).
Shogun is a turn based strategy game played on one or more computers computer (Shogun [p. 5] and [p. 73]). Shogun discloses multiplayer gaming (Shogun [p, 73]). There is no mention in Shogun of providing a game mechanic that allows a player to adjust the perceived flow of time in the game.
It has been recognized in the art that player enjoyment can be enhanced by including a game feature that allows occasional relief from the time pressures of rapidly occurring game events, thereby making it easier for the player to accomplish game maneuvers (Bone [C1:40-52]). One way of doing this is to slow game timing while allowing the player to continue to react in real time (Bone [C1:40-52]). Thus, the events of the game appear to unfold in slow motion making it easier for the player to react to the game events (Bone [C1:40-52]). This enhanced game mode can be triggered by the game randomly, in pre-determined circumstances, or the player can be given the power to invoke this game mode under whatever restrictions the game designer allows (Bone [C1:40-52]). Bone discloses a game mechanism is provided to slow the perceived flow of time for an initiator player, players in the line of site of the initiator, players seeing any other players in an altered time mode and players seen by players in an altered time mode (Bone [Abstract]).
The prior art, alone or in combination, absent hindsight, does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 36-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 11,123,637 B2; claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,791 B2; and claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,902 B2; and claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,173 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they vary slightly in terms of wording.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights