Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 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.
In claims 1, 7, 13 and 19, the limitation “accelerating the player character in a second direction that is along a front direction of the player character” lacks any description of how this limitation is to be evaluated. The claim fails to specify, geometrically speaking, how “along a front direction” is to be determined. For example, the claims fail to define some axis with respect to a geometric body of a character that an acceleration direction (an acceleration vector of a “first object”) could be found to be aligned with, or the manner in which they are aligned (parallel, perpendicular, etc.) One having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to recognize what is being claimed. The instant specification’s discussion of the phrase “along a front direction” supports a finding of indefinite claim language. In [0054], it is noted that “the acceleration direction of the player character 101 does not need to coincide with the front direction, and may be calculated so that it is generally along the front direction”. Essentially, applicant’s own conception of the claim limitation “along a front direction” is that it has inherent ambiguity. It would be impossible to ascertain what “generally along the front direction” means.
In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase "unobtrusive manner" indefinite because the specification did not "provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary").
For example, in Datamize, the invention was directed to a computer interface screen with an "aesthetically pleasing look and feel." Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45, 75 USPQ2d at 1802-03. The meaning of the term "aesthetically pleasing" depended solely on the subjective opinion of the person selecting features to be included on the interface screen. Nothing in the intrinsic evidence (e.g., the specification) provided any guidance as to what design choices would result in an "aesthetically pleasing" look and feel. 417 F.3d at 1352, 75 USPQ2d at 1808. The claims were held indefinite because the interface screen may be "aesthetically pleasing" to one user but not to another. 417 F.3d at 1350, 75 USPQ2d at 1806. See also Ex parte Anderson, 21 USPQ2d 1241 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (the terms "comparable" and "superior" were held to be indefinite in the context of a limitation relating the characteristics of the claimed material to other materials).
Similarly, a reader of the pending independent claims would have to form a subjective opinion on what direction in a virtual space would qualify as being situated along a front direction of a player character. One person might opine that this limitation meant some unclaimed acceleration vector would have to be parallel to a plane defined by the front of a vehicle’s bumper, in other words perpendicular to an axis of travel. Another person might opine this limitation meant some unclaimed acceleration vector would have to be parallel to a vehicle centerline axis. Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 3, 9, 15 and 21, the limitation “along a road that is closer to the line-of-sight direction of the virtual camera” renders these claims indefinite. “Closer” is a comparative term used to compare a proximity or similarity of two places or things. The claims are missing a description of a second place or thing to be compared to “a road”. The claims are also missing an explanation of how a proximity or similarity of a place (road) could be compared to a direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DIDDY KONG RACING for NINTENDO 64.
Re claim 1, DIDDY KONG RACING teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute information processing, the information processing comprising: controlling a player character to move on a field in a virtual space based on an operation input; controlling a virtual camera to move in the virtual space so as to include the player character in a field of view thereof and to follow the player character from behind;
The cited non-patent literature “Diddy Kong Racing” contains screen shots of a YOUTUBE demonstration of the game title for NINTENDO 64 (“N64”). In the scenes shown over game timestamps 1:37-1:38, a virtual camera follows a third-person viewpoint including a game character driving a virtual car operated through N64 control inputs by the narrator of the video.
setting a first direction for a first object, which is arranged on the field and displayed in a directional display style that is directional in the first direction, wherein the first direction is set in a direction along a direction from the virtual camera to the first object or in a direction along a line-of-sight direction of the virtual camera;
In the game scenes depicted in the NPL, a “zipper” object placed on the racecourse comprises a set of arrows oriented inline with the axis of the virtual camera (that is, pointing away from a viewer of the screenshots).
and in response to contact between the first object and the player character, accelerating the player character in a second direction that is along a front direction of the player character.
As a matter of claim interpretation, the recitation of “a second direction” does not require that this direction must be distinct and different from the claimed “first direction”, but only that some second direction is being enumerated in addition to some first direction. In the claims, a first direction is defined with respect to a character and a second direction is defined with respect to an acceleration direction. These may be coincident directions (direction vectors) in the prior art and still meet the claim.
As shown in the NPL screen shots, when the virtual character driving a virtual race car in a direction inline with the viewing axis and away from the viewer contacts the zipper object, the character and his car are accelerated in a direction that is coincident with the car’s forward motion.
Re claims 2, 8, 14, 20, pp. 5-6 of the “Diddy Kong Racing” non-patent literature illustrates how each of a plurality of characters can move within a predefined movement range along a race course, wherein arrows guide the players to advance along the course. As depicted, the characters are not allowed to exceed bounds of the course.
Re claims 3, 9, 15 and 21, the NPL screen shots depict a “zipper” road object comprising a forward direction along a road. Because there is no context provided for the limitation “closer to the line-of-sight…” (in other words, in what way an object must be closer to a direction/vector or what other object is being compared to the road object are not specified), it is interpreted that the zipper is closer to the virtual camera than other objects that are in the distance. Consider p. 2 of the NPL. A pine tree is shown as being further from the camera than the zipper arrow object is.
Re claims 4, 10, 16 and 22, because the claims do not outline any particular steps for “setting the movement range along the route” such that the scope of a negative scenario, “without setting…” can be understood, it is interpreted that individual players’ operating NINTENDO 64 input devices to freely control the direction, braking and steering of their characters as they traverse the depicted course meets this limitation. In other words, player control of character movement contraindicates preprogrammed, ie. non-player character control of movements.
Re claims 5, 11, 17, 23, note that on p. 6/12 of the NPL reference that player characters may spin out such that the face of a character becomes visible from the viewing perspective. A screenshot where this has happened such as at timestamp 1:38:75 can be interpreted as a virtual camera that is arranged “at a position in front of the player character in a direction facing the player character”. The claim does not concretely define what “in front of the player character” or “facing the player character” means in terms of computer programming operations or geometry. And as seen in prior frames, “zipper” objects comprising acceleration arrows always face inline with the virtual camera, see timestamp 1:37:13.
Re claims 6, 12, 18 and 24, all of the scenes shown in screen shots of DIDDY KONG RACING for NINTENDO 64 comprise textures on 3D models.
Re claims 7, 13, 19, refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights