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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0045], lines 2-3, “The left end of the bar 501 may represent the past and the right end may represent the present. The right end of the bar 501 may be a future time”, it is confusing because the right end of the bar 501 represents both a present time and a future time.
In paragraph [0047], lines 3-5, “In the example shown in FIG. 3, the content corresponding to the in-game time from 860 to 873 is displayed”, the in-game time from 860 to 873 initially appeared in FIG. 4.
In paragraph [0103], line 1, “On the content display screen 500”, the content display screen should be 700, as shown in FIG. 10A and FIG. 10B.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“displaying content” in claims 1, 5, and 6, line 8, and
“the content display function” in claim 4, line 5.
“changing the display mode of the user interface” in claim 2, line 3, and
“the changing the display mode function” in claim 3, line 3.
To improve clarity, the examiner suggests using consistent terms for the same limitations throughout the claims. 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 1-6 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, 5, and 6 recite the limitation "the content" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the display mode" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and is therefore rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the display mode function" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “switch mode of content” in line 4 and “the accepted mode” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim, because claim 4 depends on claim 1 or claim 2, and claim 2 recites “the display mode of the user interface”. It is unclear how one can “switch mode of content” and how “the accepted mode” should be determined if there is only one mode available. In addition, since claim 4 can depend only on claim 1, a “mode” is never recited in claim 1, which is indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160317915 to ONDA (hereinafter ONDA) in view of “Detroit Become Human – Partners - Android Murder Crime Scene - YouTube” (hereinafter Detroit).
Regarding claim 1, ONDA discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (ONDA, paragraph [0077], lines 1-5, “Note that the terminal device may be implemented by a computer, acquire a program that causes a computer to function as each section (see above) from a computer-readable information storage medium, and implement each section (see above) by executing the program”; also see FIG. 4A-4B) having recorded thereon a game program (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, different kinds of game programs are displayed on a terminal device’s screen) for causing a server device (ONDA, paragraph [0091], lines 1-4, “The server 10 is an information processing device that can provide a service that allows the user to play the game using the terminal device 20 that is communicably connected to the server 10 through the Internet”) to realize a function of controlling progress of a game (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, a user is progressing a game by interacting with game mechanics),
a screen of the game (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B) includes a user interface (ONDA, FIG. 7A-7B, a plurality of UI buttons are aligned at a bottom of a game screen) capable of receiving a slide operation from a user (ONDA, FIG. 7A-7B, a user holds a UI button, and performs a slide operation as input to command a character on a game screen),
the game program (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B) causing the server device (ONDA, paragraph [0091], lines 1-4) to perform functions comprising:
storing the content during which the content can be displayed (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, a game program must store and compile the UI assets and the character models in order to load them at runtime), and
displaying content corresponding to a position designated by a user's operation on the user interface (ONDA, FIG 6A-6B, a character updates its position dynamically on a terminal device's screen based on a finger position of a user during a slide operation). However, ONDA does not explicitly disclose in association with an in-game time.
Detroit teaches a video game feature of controlling a game progress by moving a slider indicator of a slider (8:43-9:07). Detroit further teaches that as a user moves the slider indicator to manipulate the game progress, specific user interfaces and animations will be dynamically updated and rendered (8:43-9:07). Detroit is considered to be analogous art because controlling a game’s progress and displaying game contents with respect to predetermined in-game time is reasonably within the same field of endeavor as the instant claims and reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Detroit further teaches in association with an in-game time (Detroit, 08:44-08:50, when a user moves a slider indicator into a yellow region of a slider, a game interface renders a new triangular UI button on a game screen).
The yellow region of the slider (Detroit, 08:44-08:50) and the triangular UI button on the game screen (Detroit, 08:44-08:50) need to be mapped in order to develop a relationship between them, so that users can move the slider indictor to trigger the game program to display the triangular UI button. The yellow region is considered an in-game time because the triangular UI button will not be displayed onto the game screen if the slider indicator is not positioned within the range of the yellow region of the slider.
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 modify a game program in a terminal device as taught by ONDA in view of Detroit to include the feature of displaying new game contents based on a position of a slider indicator of a slider as taught by Detroit in order to demonstrate the changes between past events and current events. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know that displaying updates between events would efficiently guide users to progress the game so that users can benefit from producing their gameplay strategies to their personal preferences.
Regarding claim 2, ONDA in view of Detroit discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above, and Detroit further teaches further comprising: changing the display mode of the user interface according to the progress of the game (Detroit, 08:44-08:50, a user moves a slider indicator of a slider positioned at a bottom of a game screen by holding a “R2” button. When the slider indicator enters a yellow region of the slider, a triangular UI button appears on the game screen. By holding the triangular UI button, the user advances the game to turn the slider’s yellow region to blue and unlock more sections of the slider).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a slider UI of a game program in a terminal device as taught by ONDA in view of Detroit to include the feature of unlocking new sections of the slider UI as users advance a game taught by Detroit in order to provide immersive gameplay experience to users. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know that gradually unlocking game contents would keep the gameplay structured and manageable, so that users can benefit from easily re-engaging after a long break.
Regarding claim 3, ONDA in view of Detroit discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 2 as discussed above, and Detroit further teaches wherein the changing the display mode function changes a portion of the user interface that is operable by the user in accordance with the progress of the game can be visually recognized (Detroit, 08:44-08:50).
As discussed above with claim 2, a visual representation of user interface modifications is essential for enabling users to progress through the game. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know that gradually unlocking game contents would keep the gameplay structured and manageable, so that users can benefit from easily re-engaging after a long break.
Regarding claim 4, ONDA in view of Detroit discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1 or 2 as discussed above, and ONDA further discloses the game program causing the server device (ONDA, paragraph [0091], lines 1-4) to perform functions further comprising:
receiving instruction to switch mode of content to be displayed (ONDA, paragraph [0253], lines 1-7, “In this case, the first input reception area and the second input reception area correspond to the specific commands and the player characters that can be operated by the player, and the input reception processing section 213 enables or disables the input instruction that selects the specific command and the input instruction that selects the player character”),
wherein the content display function displays content corresponding to the accepted mode (ONDA, FIG. 6A-6B, character POB1 is in an enabled state in FIG. 6A. When a user holds and slides character POB2 and overlaps with character POB1 in FIG. 6B, character POB1 appears to be disabled).
Regarding claim 5, ONDA discloses a game system (ONDA, paragraph [0089], lines 1-5, “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the game system 1 according to one embodiment of the invention is configured so that a server 10 that provides a game service and a terminal device 20 (e.g., terminal devices 20A, 20B, and 20C) can connect to the Internet (i.e., network)”; also see FIG. 1) that includes a server device (ONDA, paragraph [0091], lines 1-4, “The server 10 is an information processing device that can provide a service that allows the user to play the game using the terminal device 20 that is communicably connected to the server 10 through the Internet”) and a client terminal device (ONDA, paragraph [0089], lines 1-5, also see FIG. 1), the server device (ONDA, paragraph [0091], lines 1-4) and the client terminal device (ONDA, paragraph [0089], lines 1-5, also see FIG. 1) being capable of communicating with each other via a communication network (ONDA, paragraph [0089], lines 1-5, also see FIG. 1),
the game system (ONDA, paragraph [0089], lines 1-5; also see FIG. 1) controlling progress of a game according to an operation of a user (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, a user is progressing a game by interacting with game mechanics),
a screen of the game (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B) includes a user interface (ONDA, FIG. 7A-7B, a plurality of UI buttons are aligned at a bottom of a game screen) capable of receiving a slide operation from a user (ONDA, FIG. 7A-7B, a user holds a UI button, and performs a slide operation as input to command a character on a game screen),
the game system (ONDA, paragraph [0089], lines 1-5; also see FIG. 1) comprising:
storing the content during which the content can be displayed (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, a game system must store and compile the UI assets and the character models in order to load them at runtime); and,
displaying content corresponding to a position designated by a user's operation on the user interface (ONDA, FIG 6A-6B, a character updates its position dynamically on a terminal device's screen based on a finger position of a user during a slide operation). However, ONDA does not explicitly disclose in association with an in-game time.
Detroit teaches a video game feature of controlling a game progress by moving a slider indicator of a slider (8:43-9:07). Detroit further teaches that as a user moves the slider indicator to manipulate the game progress, specific user interfaces and animations will be dynamically updated and rendered (8:43-9:07). Detroit is considered to be analogous art because controlling a game’s progress and displaying game contents with respect to predetermined in-game time is reasonably within the same field of endeavor as the instant claims and reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Detroit further teaches in association with an in-game time (Detroit, 08:44-08:50, when a user moves a slider indicator into a yellow region of a slider, a game interface renders a new triangular UI button on a game screen).
The yellow region of the slider (Detroit, 08:44-08:50) and the triangular UI button on the game screen (Detroit, 08:44-08:50) need to be mapped in order to develop a relationship between them, so that users can move the slider indictor to trigger the game program to display the triangular UI button. The yellow region is considered an in-game time because the triangular UI button will not be displayed onto the game screen if the slider indicator is not positioned within the range of the yellow region of the slider.
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 modify a game system taught by ONDA in view of Detroit to include the feature of displaying new game contents based on a position of a slider indicator of a slider as taught by Detroit in order to demonstrate the changes between past events and current events. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know that displaying updates between events would efficiently guide users to progress the game so that users can benefit from producing their gameplay strategies to their personal preferences.
Regarding claim 6, ONDA discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (ONDA, paragraph [0077], lines 1-5, “Note that the terminal device may be implemented by a computer, acquire a program that causes a computer to function as each section (see above) from a computer-readable information storage medium, and implement each section (see above) by executing the program”; also see FIG. 4A-4B) having recorded thereon a game program (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B) for causing a computer device (ONDA, paragraph [0077], lines 1-5; also see FIG. 4A-4B) to implement a function of controlling progress of a game (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, a user is progressing a game by interacting with game mechanics),
a screen of the game (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B) includes a user interface (ONDA, FIG. 7A-7B, a plurality of UI buttons are aligned at the bottom of a game screen) capable of receiving a slide operation from a user (ONDA, FIG. 7A-7B, a user holds a UI button, and performs a slide operation as input to command a character on a game screen),
the game program (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B) causing the computer device (ONDA, paragraph [0077], lines 1-5; also see FIG. 4A-4B) to perform functions comprising:
storing the content during which the content can be displayed (ONDA, FIG. 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, a game program must store and compile the UI assets and the character models in order to load them at runtime), and
displaying content corresponding to a position designated by a user's operation on the user interface (ONDA, FIG 6A-6B, a character updates its position dynamically on a terminal device's screen based on a finger position of a user during a slide operation). However, ONDA does not explicitly disclose in association with an in-game time.
Detroit teaches a video game feature of controlling a game progress by moving a slider indicator of a slider (8:43-9:07). Detroit further teaches that as a user moves the slider indicator to manipulate the game progress, specific user interfaces and animations will be dynamically updated and rendered (8:43-9:07). Detroit is considered to be analogous art because controlling a game’s progress and displaying game contents with respect to predetermined in-game time is reasonably within the same field of endeavor as the instant claims and reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Detroit further teaches in association with an in-game time (Detroit, 08:44-08:50, when a user moves a slider indicator into a yellow region of a slider, a game interface renders a new triangular UI button on a game screen).
The yellow region of the slider (Detroit, 08:44-08:50) and the triangular UI button on the game screen (Detroit, 08:44-08:50) need to be mapped in order to develop a relationship between them, so that users can move the slider indictor to trigger the game program to display the triangular UI button. The yellow region is considered an in-game time because the triangular UI button will not be displayed onto the game screen if the slider indicator is not positioned within the range of the yellow region of the slider.
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 modify a game program in a computer device as taught by ONDA in view of Detroit to include the feature of displaying new game contents based on a position of a slider indicator of a slider as taught by Detroit in order to demonstrate the changes between past events and current events. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know that displaying updates between events would efficiently guide users to progress the game so that users can benefit from producing their gameplay strategies to their personal preferences.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN-ZHONG LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5946. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/Z.Z.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
