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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are blurry or illegible, and not capable of accurate reproduction for publication. See Figures 2C, 4, 5A, and 5B. It is noted that parent application 17/384,224 contained similar informalities, which were corrected on 7/23/2024. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein the route selection characteristics discards,” but should recite “characteristics discard.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “Non-transitory computer storage medium,” but should probably recite “A non-transitory computer storage medium.” 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 21-40 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 21 recites the limitation “rendering the selected poses” in the second-from-last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim previously recites “generating pose data” (two lines above). It is not clear that the generated pose data is the same as the selected poses. Independent claims 32 and 40 suffer from the same deficiency as 21. Dependent claims 22-31 and 33-39 are rejected based on their dependency upon claims 21 and 32, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 24 and 35 recite “selecting an event route” on the second-from-last line of each claim. However, independent claims 21 and 32 already introduce the term “an event route.” As such, it is unclear whether the dependent claims are referring to the same or a different event route from their respective independent claims. Claims 25-27, 30, 36, and 37 are similarly rejected based on their dependency upon claims 24 or 35. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,172,079. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter. More particularly, both sets of claims are directed to systems, methods, and/or storage media for executing a game application comprising a game environment. Both sets of claims encompass a game environment comprising at least one player-controlled character and a plurality of non-player controlled characters (NPCs), the plurality of NPCs configured to be controlled by the game application, as well as receiving user input selecting a first route from a plurality of routes for an in-game event, wherein the first rout is performed by at least one of the plurality of NPCs during the in-game event. Both sets of claims further encompass determining a first in-game waypoint path for a first NPC within the game environment that matches the first route, each route being generated based on telemetry data collected from movement performed along the route by a real world person. Both sets of claims encompass filtering the plurality of routes using filtering criteria. Finally, both sets of claims encompass rendering or outputting the character path for execution by the NPC using the route, including rendering selected poses during movement of the NPC character along the path within the game environment. As such, there is substantial overlap in scope between the instant claims and the patent claims. Thus, the instant claims and the claims of the patent not patentably distinct from each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited. US 8,860,732 to Popovic et al. teaches quasi-physical simulator configured to determine the configuration of animated characters as they move within the application and are acted on by external forces. The simulator may work together with a parameterized animation module that synthesizes and provides reference poses for the animation from example motion clips that it has segmented and parameterized. US 11,235,241 to Scheurwater teaches a route navigation system that can aid the user by providing navigational aids for navigating within a virtual game environment. The navigational aids can provide visual indications to the user within the game environment in order to help direct the character to navigation objects used for traversing the environment. The route generation module can be configured to automatically generate navigation links between navigation nodes within game environment based on telemetric data sourced from users of the game application. US 11,097,189 to Alderman et al. teaches sending a contextually aware communication, whereby a computer system is configured to use game state data to determine a target location that a player is focusing on in a virtual environment in a video game, identify a unit that the player likely wants to communicate about based on at least priorities of unit types and proximities of units to the target location, and select a communication action for performance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights