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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5-6, 12-19, 21-22, 28-35, and 39-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 20-21, 23, and 25-30 of copending Application No. 18/958,727 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of at least the following reasons.
Pending US Application XX/YYY,ZZZ
Co-pending US Application XX/YYY,ZZZ
Claim 5: One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein a game program causing one or more processors of a game system to:
start a first game;
process the first game, based on an operation input by a user;
generate a game image including a first image based on the first game;
if a game state satisfies a first condition in the first game, cause the game state to transition to a state before the first condition is satisfied; and
if the game state satisfies a second condition in the first game, stop or end processing of the first game.
Claim 3: One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein a game program causing one or more processors of a game system to:
simultaneously start a first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input;
process the first game, based on the operation input by a user;
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information;
generate an entire game image including a first game image based on the first game and at least one second game image based on the second game; and
stop or end processing of each game if game states of the first game and the second game each satisfy a first condition.
Claim 15: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 3, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies a third condition in each of the first game and the second game, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the third condition is satisfied.
Claim 6: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 5, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to measure an elapsed time from the start of the game until the second condition is satisfied, including a time taken for the transition of the game state.
Claim 15: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 15, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to measure an elapsed time from the start of the game until the first condition is satisfied, including a time taken for the transition of the state.
Claim 12: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 5, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to cause the first game to operate by an emulator.
Claim 9: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 3, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to cause the first game and the second game to operate by individual emulators, respectively.
Claim 13: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 5, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to:
simultaneously start the first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input;
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information;
generate the game image including at least one second game image based on the second game;
if the first condition is satisfied in the second game, causes the game state to transition to a game state before the first condition is satisfied; and
if the second condition is satisfied in the second game, stop or end processing of the second game.
Claim 3: One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein a game program causing one or more processors of a game system to:
simultaneously start a first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input;
process the first game, based on the operation input by a user;
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information;
generate an entire game image including a first game image based on the first game and at least one second game image based on the second game; and
stop or end processing of each game if game states of the first game and the second game each satisfy a first condition.
Claim 15: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 3, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies a third condition in each of the first game and the second game, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the third condition is satisfied.
Claim 14: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 13, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to store a history of the operation input in the first game as the operation history information.
Claim 6: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 3, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to store a history of the operation input in the first game as the operation history information.
Claim 15: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 13, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information stored by another game system.
Claim 7: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 3, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information stored by another game system.
Claim 16: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 14, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information obtained when an elapsed time from the start of the first game until the second condition is satisfied is shortest.
Claim 11: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 6, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information obtained when an elapsed time from the start of the first game until the first condition is satisfied is shortest.
Claim 17: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 15, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to start the first game and the second game next in a predetermined order only if a third condition is satisfied in a series of games in which a plurality of types of the first games and the second games are performed continuously in the predetermined order.
Claim 12: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 7, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to start the first game and the second game next in a predetermined order only if a second condition is satisfied in a series of games in which a plurality of types of the first games and the second games are performed continuously in the predetermined order.
Claim 18: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 17, wherein the third condition is a condition that, in rankings based on results of end of a predetermined first game and a predetermined second game in the series of games, a ranking based on the result of the end of the first game is within a predetermined ranking.
Claim 13: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 12, wherein the second condition is a condition that, in rankings based on results of end of a predetermined first game and a predetermined second game in the series of games, a ranking based on the result of the end of the first game is within a predetermined ranking.
Claim 19: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 17, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the plurality of types of the second games executed in a predetermined order in the series of games, based on the operation history information of the plurality of types of the second games stored by another single game system, respectively.
Claim 14: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 12, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the plurality of types of the second games executed in the predetermined order in the series of games, based on the operation history information of the plurality of types of the second games stored by another single game system, respectively.
Claim 21: A computer implemented method causing one or more processors of a game system to:
start a first game;
process the first game, based on an operation input by a user;
generate a game image including a first image based on the first game;
if a game state satisfies a first condition in the first game, cause the game state to transition to a state before the first condition is satisfied; and
if the game state satisfies a second condition in the first game, stop or end processing of the first game.
Claim 17: A computer implemented method causing one or more processors of a game system to:
simultaneously start a first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input;
process the first game, based on the operation input by a user;
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information;
generate an entire game image including a first game image based on the first game and at least one second game image based on the second game; and
stop or end processing of each game if game states of the first game and the second game each satisfy a first condition.
Claim 29: The computer implemented method according to claim 17, further causing the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies a third condition in each of the first game and the second game, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the third condition is satisfied.
Claim 22: The computer implemented method according to claim 21, further causing the one or more processors to measure an elapsed time from the start of the game until the second condition is satisfied, including a time taken for the transition of the game state.
Claim 30: The computer implemented method according to claim 29, further causing the one or more processors to measure an elapsed time from the start of the game until the first condition is satisfied, including a time taken for the transition of the state.
Claim 28: The computer implemented method according to claim 21, further causing the one or more processors to cause the first game to operate by an emulator.
Claim 23: The computer implemented method according to claim 17, further causing the one or more processors to cause the first game and the second game to operate by individual emulators, respectively.
Claim 29: The computer implemented method according to claim 21, further causing the one or more processors to:
simultaneously start the first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input;
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information;
generate the game image including at least one second game image based on the second game;
if the first condition is satisfied in the second game, causes the game state to transition to a game state before the first condition is satisfied; and
if the second condition is satisfied in the second game, stop or end processing of the second game.
Claim 17: A computer implemented method causing one or more processors of a game system to:
simultaneously start a first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input;
process the first game, based on the operation input by a user;
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information;
generate an entire game image including a first game image based on the first game and at least one second game image based on the second game; and
stop or end processing of each game if game states of the first game and the second game each satisfy a first condition.
Claim 29: The computer implemented method according to claim 17, further causing the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies a third condition in each of the first game and the second game, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the third condition is satisfied.
Claim 30: The computer implemented method according to claim 29, further causing the one or more processors to store a history of the operation input in the first game as the operation history information.
Claim 20: The computer implemented method according to claim 17, further causing the one or more processors to store a history of the operation input in the first game as the operation history information.
Claim 31: The computer implemented method according to claim 29, further causing the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information stored by another game system.
Claim 21: The computer implemented method according to claim 17, further causing the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information stored by another game system.
Claim 32: The computer implemented method according to claim 30, further causing the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information obtained when an elapsed time from the start of the first game until the second condition is satisfied is shortest.
Claim 25: The computer implemented method according to claim 20, further causing the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information obtained when an elapsed time from the start of the first game until the first condition is satisfied is shortest.
Claim 33: The computer implemented method according to claim 31, further causing the one or more processors to start the first game and the second game next in a predetermined order only if a third condition is satisfied in a series of games in which a plurality of types of the first games and the second games are performed continuously in the predetermined order.
Claim 26: The computer implemented method according to claim 21, further causing the one or more processors to start the first game and the second game next in a predetermined order only if a second condition is satisfied in a series of games in which a plurality of types of the first games and the second games are performed continuously in the predetermined order.
Claim 34: The computer implemented method according to claim 33, wherein the third condition is a condition that, in rankings based on results of end of a predetermined first game and a predetermined second game in the series of games, a ranking based on the result of the end of the first game is within a predetermined ranking.
Claim 27: The computer implemented method according to claim 26, wherein the second condition is a condition that, in rankings based on results of end of a predetermined first game and a predetermined second game in the series of games, a ranking based on the result of the end of the first game is within a predetermined ranking.
Claim 35: The computer implemented method according to claim 33, further causing the one or more processors to process the plurality of types of the second games executed in a predetermined order in the series of games, based on the operation history information of the plurality of types of the second games stored by another single game system, respectively.
Claim 28: The computer implemented method according to claim 26, further causing the one or more processors to process the plurality of types of the second games executed in the predetermined order in the series of games, based on the operation history information of the plurality of types of the second games stored by another single game system, respectively.
Claim 39: One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein a game program causing one or more processors of a game system to:
start a first game;
process the first game, based on an operation input by a user;
generate a game image including a first image based on the first game;
if a game state satisfies a first condition in the first game, cause the game state to transition to a state before the first condition is satisfied; and
if the game state satisfies a second condition in the first game, stop or end processing of the first game.
Claim 3: One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein a game program causing one or more processors of a game system to:
simultaneously start a first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input;
process the first game, based on the operation input by a user;
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information;
generate an entire game image including a first game image based on the first game and at least one second game image based on the second game; and
stop or end processing of each game if game states of the first game and the second game each satisfy a first condition.
Claim 15: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media according to claim 3, wherein the game program further causes the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies a third condition in each of the first game and the second game, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the third condition is satisfied.
Claim 40: A computer implemented method causing one or more processors of a game system to:
start a first game;
process the first game, based on an operation input by a user;
generate a game image including a first image based on the first game;
if a game state satisfies a first condition in the first game, cause the game state to transition to a state before the first condition is satisfied; and
if the game state satisfies a second condition in the first game, stop or end processing of the first game.
Claim 17: A computer implemented method causing one or more processors of a game system to:
simultaneously start a first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input;
process the first game, based on the operation input by a user;
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information;
generate an entire game image including a first game image based on the first game and at least one second game image based on the second game; and
stop or end processing of each game if game states of the first game and the second game each satisfy a first condition.
Claim 29: The computer implemented method according to claim 17, further causing the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies a third condition in each of the first game and the second game, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the third condition is satisfied.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 38 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Likewise, should claims 5 and 21 be found allowable, claims 39 and 40, respectively, will be objected to under the same reasoning.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 21, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2003/0211887 (hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 21, and 37-40, Yamamoto discloses a game system comprising one or more processors (fig. 2: game machine 1 comprising processor 10), the one or more processors being configured to:
start a first game (fig. 6: game starts; par. 0064: “the race is started (step S101)… Once the start button 9 is pressed, the CPU 10 is restored from the waiting state, and initializes the kart data… word "START" to be displayed… for informing the player when the race is started”);
process the first game, based on an operation input by a user (par. 0012: “the game machine may further include an operation section (a controller 2) and an operation control section (S103). The operation section is operated by the player. The operation control section controls a state (for example, a traveling direction) of the player object based on an operation input (an input from a joystick 6, etc.)”);
generate a game image including a first image based on the first game (fig. 3: first game/race image including player character/kart image 1; par. 0054: “In this racing game, one or more race karts appear in the game space… the player kart corresponds to a player object);
if a game state satisfies a first condition in the first game, cause the game state to transition to a state before the first condition is satisfied (par. 0005: “After the overturn, the race kart has to be recovered to a state capable of running in order to continue the game;” par. 0015: “the overturn recovery section brings the traveling direction of the overturned player object (PoseZ, the Z component of the pose matrix Pose) close to the traveling direction (a pre-overturn value PPoseZ) stored in the traveling direction storing section. Thus, the orientation of the player object is automatically recovered to the pre-overturn orientation when it is recovered from the overturn state, whereby the player is allowed to continue the game smoothly without losing his/her bearings”); and
if the game state satisfies a second condition in the first game, stop or end processing of the first game (fig. 6: game ends after finish line is crossed and goal image is displayed; par. 0072: “CPU 10 then determines whether the player kart has crossed the finish line or not (step S110). If the player kart has crossed the finish line, the CPU 10 proceeds to step S113. In this case, the CPU 10 causes a goal image representing the race results, etc., to be displayed (step S113), and ends the process for one racing game”).
Further regarding Claims 5 and 39, Yamamoto discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored therein a game program causing one or more processors of a game system (par. 0020: “a game program (a game program stored in a DVD-ROM 3) for causing a game machine (composed of a game machine 1, a controller 2, the DVD-ROM 3, and a memory card 4) to execute a game (a racing game) that causes a player object (a player kart) corresponding to a player to appear”) to perform the above steps (see claim 1).
Further regarding Claims 21 and 40, Yamamoto discloses a computer implemented method causing one or more processors of a game system (fig. 2: game machine 1 comprising processor 10; par. 0020: “a game program (a game program stored in a DVD-ROM 3) for causing a game machine (composed of a game machine 1, a controller 2, the DVD-ROM 3, and a memory card 4) to execute a game (a racing game) that causes a player object (a player kart) corresponding to a player to appear”) to perform the above steps (see claim 1).
Further regarding Claim 37, Yamamoto discloses a game apparatus comprising one or more processors (fig. 2: game machine 1 comprising processor 10), the one or more processors being configured to perform the above steps (see claim 1).
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.
Claims 2-3, 8-11, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 1, 5, and 21 above, and further in view of US 6,699,127 (hereinafter “Lobb”).
Regarding Claims 2, 8, and 24, Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose storing game state data in each frame. However, Lobb discloses the one or more processors are configured to store the game state in each frame from a current frame to a frame before a predetermined period in the first game (col. 4, ll. 55-65: “inline keyframe is a snapshot of the current state of the game universe. In other words, the snap shot or keyframe includes all information on the present state of the game;” col. 5, ll. 8-12: “A wrapper buffer is used to store each keyframe generated during the game”), and cause the game state to transition to a game state in a predetermined frame before the first condition is satisfied, if the first condition is satisfied (col. 3, ll. 38-50: “the game is rewound three seconds each time the replay option is selected;” abstract: “Once rewound, the game is restored based on the keyframe and is then played back from the keyframe using the stored controller information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the frame-by-frame game state storage of Lobb with the particular gaming program of Yamamoto in order to make the game state restoration more precise (i.e., restoring to a specific frame) (Lobb, abstract; col. 10, ll. 18-32).
Regarding Claims 3, 9, and 25, Yamamoto modified by Lobb further discloses the one or more processors are configured to, if the game state satisfies the first condition, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the first condition is satisfied, by causing the game state to sequentially transition to the game state in each frame to the frame before the predetermined period (Lobb, col. 3, ll. 38-49: “the game is rewound three seconds each time the replay option is selected, and then the game replays each of the three second portions of the game automatically using the stored controller information;” col. 4, ll. 30-35: “the player can stop and rewind the actual game at any desired point in the game, stop the playback of the rewound portion of the game;” col. 12, ll. 5-20: “inline keyframes… should be rebuilt during playback, in order to restore the ability for the player to selectively replay or rewind into any point in the playback sequence”).
The combination of the particular gaming program of Yamamoto with the game state storage of Lobb described above for Claims 2, 8, and 24 would have included this sequential transition.
Regarding Claims 10 and 26, modified Yamamoto further discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies the first condition, cause the game state to transition to a game state before the first condition is satisfied, after a predetermined waiting period has elapsed (Yamamoto, figs. 11A, 15; par. 0017: “the overturn processing section may maintain an overturn state of the player object only during a second predetermined time period (a non-forced time period T2) after a lapse of the first predetermined time period without exerting the external force that causes the overturn (S512 and S513 are not executed). Thus, it is possible to naturally display the images in which the player object is overturned”).
Regarding Claims 11 and 27, Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose transitioning to a game state at the start of the game. However, Lobb discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to, if the game state satisfies the first condition, cause the game state to transition to a game state at the start of the first game (col. 7, ll. 55-58: “If the user wants to restart game play, he or she can press a reset button 90;” col. 9, ll. 56-60: “the game can be retrieved from memory and played back simply by using the saved first inline keyframe to restore the entire game universe”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transition to a game state at the start of the game as disclosed by Lobb with the particular gaming program of Yamamoto in order to allow the user the ability to restart if desired (Lobb, col. 7, ll. 55-58; col. 9, ll. 56-60).
Claims 4, 12, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 1, 5, and 21 above, and further in view of US 2015/0080133 (hereinafter “Hayashida”).
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 28, Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose an emulator. However, Hayashida discloses the one or more processors are configured to cause the first game to operate by an emulator (par. 0030: “management program P1 is executed on the hardware of the game machine 1. Then, an emulator operates on the management program P1. Further, the game program P3 operates on the emulator”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the emulator of Hayashida with the particular gaming program of Yamamoto in order to allow “operation of a game program whose operation is intrinsically allowed only in other game machines,” thus allowing the user to play more games (Hayashida, par. 0031).
Claims 6-7 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 5 and 21 above, and further in view of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, as evidenced by a 2017 YouTube video entitled “150cc Time Trials | Beating All Staff Ghosts | Mario Kart 8 Deluxe” (hereinafter “Mario Kart 8”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 22, Yamamoto implies the elapsed time from the game start until the second condition is satisfied would include transition time but does not explicitly disclose as such. However, Mario Kart 8 discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to measure an elapsed time from the start of the game until the second condition is satisfied, including a time taken for the transition of the game state (figs. 1-3; 11:10-11:18 of video shows a timer measuring the time from the start to end of the race, and that time includes the time it takes for the player object to fall off the track and to transition back to a prior game state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the specified time measurement of Mario Kart 8 with the particular gaming program of Yamamoto in order to most accurately measure the full length of time between the start of the game and the time at which the second condition is satisfied (Mario Kart 8, figs. 1-3). This time would then be able to be used for comparisons to other players’ times.
Regarding Claims 7 and 23, Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the first condition comprises an operation character falling, taking damage, or entering an incorrect location. However, Mario Kart 8 discloses the first condition is a condition satisfied when at least one of falling of an operation character acting based on the operation input, damage to the operation character, and entry of the operation character into a location other than a pre-specified location occurs (figs. 1-3; 11:10-11:18 of video shows a timer measuring the time from the start to end of the race, and that time includes the time it takes for the player object to fall off the track and to transition back to a prior game state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the falling of the first condition of Mario Kart 8 with the particular gaming program of Yamamoto because Yamamoto already discloses the need to transition/recover an operation character to a prior game state after an error that would prevent the player from continuing the game (Yamamoto, par. 0005), and Mario Kart 8 merely discloses an example of a condition that would similarly require and trigger such a transition/recovery (e.g., falling off the race track) (Mario Kart 8, figs. 1-3).
Claims 13-16, 20, 29-32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 5 and 21 above, and further in view of US 2009/0093313 (hereinafter “Yabuki”).
Regarding Claims 13 and 29, Yamamoto does not disclosed a second game based on operation history. however, Yabuki discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to: simultaneously start the first game and at least one second game that is the same as the first game and operates based on operation history information that is a history of an operation input (pars. 0103-0104: In step S11, the CPU 10 executes the game process. Specifically, the CPU 10 controls the player object Op in the game world in accordance with the operation information inputted from the controller 7… the ghost object Og in the game world is controlled in accordance with any of the ghost data (the own ghost data or the received ghost data) stored in the flash memory 17 of the game apparatus 3… the CPU 10 executes a process of generating the ghost data including the play data described above, in accordance with the operation information inputted from the controller 7 during the racing game being played while executing the aforementioned game process;” Examiner notes both the player object (first game) and ghost object (second game) begin at the start line at timestamp 0:0:000);
process the at least one second game, based on at least one piece of the operation history information (par. 0103: “the ghost object Og in the game world is controlled in accordance with any of the ghost data (the own ghost data or the received ghost data) stored in the flash memory 17 of the game apparatus 3;” pars. 0091-0092: “ghost data includes information such as… play data representing a content of an operation performed by the user… play data represents a transition of an input operation performed by a user in a time period from a start to a goal in a race, as shown in FIG. 13”);
generate the game image including at least one second game image based on the second game (fig. 10: generated game image including second game image, “ghost object Og”);
if the first condition is satisfied in the second game, causes the game state to transition to a game state before the first condition is satisfied (Examiner notes the second game is an exact carbon copy of a previous play of the first game (including all inputs, pauses between input, etc.) and is meant to precisely replicate the performance onscreen of that previous play, and therefore it would inherently include any instance of the previous playthrough which satisfied the first condition (e.g., falling and a subsequent recovery)); and
if the second condition is satisfied in the second game, stop or end processing of the second game (fig. 16: after second condition is satisfied in the second game (i.e., the ghost object completes a race), such as when the player object fails to finish with a better time at step s12, the game ends at step s20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the second game of Yabuki with the particular gaming program of Yamamoto in order to allow users to compete with others (Yabuki, par. 0086, fig. 10).
Regarding Claims 14 and 30, Yamamoto modified by Yabuki further discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to store a history of the operation input in the first game as the operation history information (Yabuki, fig. 16: store ghost data in flash memory at step s13; fig. 13: history of operation input; par. 0106: “In step S13, the CPU 10 updates the own ghost data, of the relevant racecourse, stored in the flash memory 17 by replacing the own ghost data with the ghost data generated in step S11;” pars. 0091-0092: “ghost data includes information such as… play data representing a content of an operation performed by the user… play data represents a transition of an input operation performed by a user in a time period from a start to a goal in a race, as shown in FIG. 13”).
The combination of the particular gaming program of Yamamoto with the second game of Yabuki described above for Claims 13 and 29 would have included this operation history storage.
Regarding Claims 15 and 31, Yamamoto modified by Yabuki further discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information stored by another game system (Yabuki, fig. 10; pars. 0086-0087: “a user of the game apparatus 3 is allowed to download, as necessary, the ghost data, stored in the server device 8, of a user of another game apparatus 3, and compete with the user of the other game apparatus 3 by using the ghost data… may directly receive, from another game apparatus 3, the ghost data generated by the other game apparatus 3, through a communication line or a storage medium”).
The combination of the particular gaming program of Yamamoto with the second game of Yabuki described above for Claims 13 and 29 would have included this step of processing operation history stored by another game system.
Regarding Claims 16 and 32, Yamamoto modified by Yabuki further discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the second game, based on the operation history information obtained when an elapsed time from the start of the first game until the second condition is satisfied is shortest (Yabuki, pars. 0105-0106: “When the racing game is ended, the CPU 10 determines, in step S12, whether or not the accomplishment time of the racing game having been most recently played is better than the player's own record. When the accomplishment time of the racing game having been most recently played is better than the player's own record, the process advances to step S13… In step S13, the CPU 10 updates the own ghost data, of the relevant racecourse”).
The combination of the particular gaming program of Yamamoto with the operation history storage of Yabuki described above for Claims 14 and 30 would have included this step of obtaining operation history when the elapsed time from the start of the first game until the second condition is satisfied (e.g., finishing/clearing a race) is shortest.
Regarding Claims 20 and 36, Yamamoto does not disclose a server or uploading play record data. However, Yabuki discloses the game system includes a plurality of game apparatuses including the processors, and at least one server (fig. 8; par. 0080: “a data distribution system comprises a server device 8 and a plurality (for example, three in FIG. 8) of the game apparatuses 3a, 3b, and 3c;” par. 0115: “the ghost data has been received through the communication section 84 from one of the plurality of the game apparatuses 3;” fig. 2: each game apparatus 3 has at least a processor 10), and
the game program further causes the one or more processors to upload play record data including information of an elapsed time from the start of the first game until the second condition is satisfied in the first game, to the server (fig. 16: upload ghost data at step S14; par. 0091: “ghost data includes information such as… play data representing a content of an operation performed by the user; accomplishment time representing an elapsed time from a start to a goal with an accuracy of 1/1000 second;” par. 0097: “server device 8 receives the ghost data from the game apparatus 3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the server and uploading ability as disclosed by Yabuki with the particular gaming program of Yamamoto in order to allow users to compare scores, share their best times, and/or compete with others (Yabuki, pars. 0086, 0100; fig. 12).
Claims 17-19 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Yabuki as applied to claims 15 and 31 above, and further in view of US 2013/0198334 (hereinafter “Ikenaga”).
Regarding Claims 17 and 33, modified Yamamoto does not disclose a third condition determining whether a plurality of first and second games are performed continuously. However, Ikenaga discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to start the first game and the second game next in a predetermined order only if a third condition is satisfied in a series of games in which a plurality of types of the first games and the second games are performed continuously in the predetermined order (figs. 6(E), 6(G): knockout tournaments with predetermined playing order; fig. 7(B): individual vs. individual knockout tournament example; par. 0068: “The knockout tournament information storing unit may also store rank information of each user in association;” Examiner notes that within the individual vs. individual knockout tournament, whichever player is ranked last after each game is eliminated, and thus the third condition would be not losing a given game in order to go on to the next game within the plurality of games performed in the predetermined order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the continuance performance of a series of first and second games as disclosed by Ikenaga with the particular gaming program of modified Yamamoto in order to allow users to participate in knockout-style tournaments, thus enhancing the users’ enjoyment and ability to compete (Ikenaga, abstract; pars. 0068-0069, 0087).
Regarding Claims 18 and 34, Yamamoto modified by Ikenaga further discloses the third condition is a condition that, in rankings based on results of end of a predetermined first game and a predetermined second game in the series of games, a ranking based on the result of the end of the first game is within a predetermined ranking (fig. 8: knockout tournament; fig. 18: rankings/leaderboard; par. 0068: “The knockout tournament information storing unit may also store rank information of each user in association, as is the case for the opponent information storing unit described above;” figs. 6(E), 6(G): knockout tournaments with predetermined playing order; fig. 7(B): individual vs. individual knockout tournament example; par. 0068: “The knockout tournament information storing unit may also store rank information of each user in association;” Examiner notes that within the individual vs. individual knockout tournament, whichever player is ranked last after each game is eliminated, and thus the third condition would be ranking above last place in order to go on to the next game within the plurality of games performed in the predetermined order).
The combination of the particular gaming program of Yamamoto with the continuous performance of a series of first and second games as disclosed by Ikenaga described above for Claims 17 and 33 would have included this particular third condition.
Regarding Claims 19 and 35, Yamamoto modified by Ikenaga further discloses the game program further causes the one or more processors to process the plurality of types of the second games executed in a predetermined order in the series of games, based on the operation history information of the plurality of types of the second games stored by another single game system, respectively (par. 0087: “the game program may be executed asynchronously (e.g., a user competes against a video recorded in advance);” par. 0130: “a player can play a racing game quasi-synchronously with other players as in the embodiment, although it is asynchronous in actuality;” fig. 1: game systems 102, each of which produce operation history information).
The combination of the particular gaming program of Yamamoto with the continuous performance of a series of first and second games as disclosed by Ikenaga described above for Claims 17 and 33 would have included this operation history information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2015/0336006 (Motokura) teaches a racing game in which the player may compete against “ghost data” of another player using a different gaming console.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights