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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/23/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language (see strikethrough reference “Takashi IMAGIRE, Fast crush simulation with generating debris and dust, Media Computing Conference 2008, Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Image Electronics Engineers of Japan in 2008, Visual Computing/Graphics and CAD Joint Symposium [DVD-ROM] Visual Computing/Graphics and CA”). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
It is acknowledged that a concise explanation of relevance of the following listed reference has also not been received; however, the provided URL has been used to retrieve the English translation of the listed reference which has therefore been considered, and said English translation has been appended hereto: “Hello! Stream Square, Episode 304: “Teardown”, an action game challenging a robbery mission in a world where anything can be destroyed, 4Gamer.net, November 6, 2020”.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a determination shape set based on the destruction action” recited in claim 4, ln. 5 and claim 12, ln. 4 should likely read “a determination shape
“in a case where the destruction action hits the virtual object” recited in claim 5, ln. 6 and claim 13, ln. 5 should likely read “in [[a]]the case where the destruction action hits the virtual object”; and
“hardness less than or equal to predetermined hardness” recited in claim 5, ln. 8 and claim 13, ln. 7 should likely read “hardness less than or equal to a predetermined hardness”.
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 3-4, 8, 11-12, 16-19, and 22 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 3 recites in part “if the destruction action is performed, determining a hit position where the destruction action hits the virtual object”. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites in part “based on an operation input of the player, causing the player to perform a destruction action”. Accordingly, claim 1 recites where the destruction action is performed, and thus, it is indefinite as to how the destruction action is performed, but also is not performed in claim 3 evidenced by the term “if”.
A suggested amendment to claim 3 is as follows: “if the destruction action hits the virtual object, determining a hit position where the destruction action hit[[s]] the virtual object”.
Claims 8, 11, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 3 and 11, respectively.
Claim 4 recites in part “the image processing further comprises making a contact determination between the polygon mesh or a determination polygon mesh representing the surface of the virtual object generated for a determination and a determination shape set based on the destruction action”. However, it is indefinite as to how the polygon mesh, which represents the surface of the virtual object (see claim 1), and the determination polygon mesh representing the surface of the virtual object (see claim 4) differ, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see, Specification, [0114], “[A] determination polygon mesh for determining contact (collision) with another object may be prepared separately from the polygon mesh forming the surface.”).
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 17 recites in part “An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors that are configured to execute image processing”. However, the information processing apparatus of claim 17 recites the same hardware and limitations as that recited in claim 9, which is directed to an “information processing system”. Accordingly, it is indefinite as to how the information processing system and information processing apparatus differ.
Claims 18-19 are rejected for similar reasoning (see claims 18-19 reciting the same limitations of claims 10-11, aside from the preamble reciting “information processing apparatus”, as opposed to “information processing system”).
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penmatsa et al. (U.S. 9,737,811 B1) (hereinafter “Penmatsa”) in view of Sato et al. (U.S. 2024/0082722 A1) (hereinafter “Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Penmatsa discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an information processing apparatus to execute image processing (Col. 3, ln. 42-61; Col. 21, ln. 62-Col. 22, ln. 6; Col. 22, ln. 27-59) comprising:
storing, in a memory, volume data indicating a virtual object in a virtual space, and with respect to each voxel included in a voxel space placed in the virtual space, holding voxel values at least including a density indicating a degree to which an object occupies inside a space defined by the voxel (Col. 2, ln. 6-57; Col. 3, ln. 51-Col. 4, ln. 12; Col. 4, ln. 49-60; Col. 5, ln. 63-Col. 6, ln. 11; Col. 6, ln. 34-67, three-dimensional volumes or voxels may be represented by graphics information corresponding to terrain), and a damage value indicating damage caused on the voxel (Col. 2, ln. 38-51; Col. 2, ln. 58-Col. 3, ln. 19, where each layer may be associated with a strength or destructibility value and a destruction event may be associated with a degree of impact or intensity, wherein upon occurrence of a destruction event, the destructibility value may be changed to reflect a decrease in strength of that terrain);
based on an operation input of the player, causing the player character to perform a destruction action (Col. 4, ln. 13-30; Col. 7, ln. 23-40, where the event detection component that detects a destruction event that affects an area of simulated space receives information relating to an event from one or more input devices (e.g., reacting to one or more user inputs in a video game));
in a case where the destruction action hits the virtual object, if a voxel satisfying a predetermined criterion is present at least regarding the damage value, updating the voxel values of a voxel included in an erasure range set based on a position of the player character to a density indicating that the virtual object is not present (Col. 2, ln. 38-51; Col. 3, ln. 19-35; Col. 7, ln. 23-Col. 8, ln. 7; Col. 8, ln. 60-Col. 9, ln. 40; Col. 12, ln. 17-Col. 13, ln. 8, where the intensity of the destruction causing event (e.g., explosion, weapons fire, etc.) may be based on the relative distance between the center associated with the destruction causing event and the affected area, wherein the extent to which each area is affected is determined, and the textures/layer characteristics and/or destructibility value of each affected layer of each affected area is modified, where one or more layers of an affected area may be destroyed and the one or more destroyed layers are removed), and if a voxel satisfying the predetermined criterion is not present, updating the voxel values of the voxel included in the erasure range to a damage value indicating that damage increases (Col. 2, ln. 58-Col. 3, ln. 18; Col. 7, ln. 23-Col. 8, ln. 7; Col. 9, ln. 4-40; Col. 12, ln. 17-Col. 13, ln. 8, where, upon occurrence of a destruction causing event, the destructibility value of the affected terrain may be changed such as to reflect or represent a decrease in strength of that terrain, and wherein one or more textures of an area of terrain may be changed and the graphic information may then be updated and rendered accordingly); and
based on the volume data, at least drawing a polygon mesh representing a surface of the virtual object, thereby generating an image of the virtual space (Figs. 4A & 6-7; Col. 8, ln. 2-7 & 26-59, where the three-dimensional volume of a simulated space (e.g., terrain), which is divided into multiple three-dimensional volumes or voxels, is rendered and displayed to a user; Col.14, ln. 16-24, where the terrain model may be rendered using, for example, a voxel-based mesh generation technique (applying voxel-based mesh generation to multiple voxels will generate a polygon mesh)).
Penmatsa discloses receiving information relating to an event in a video game from one or more input devices (e.g., reacting to one or more user inputs in a video game) (Col. 2, ln. 38-51; Col. 4, ln. 13-30; Col. 7, ln. 23-40, where the one or more input devices include touchscreens, gesture recognition components, controllers, keyboard, mouse, microphone, etc., and where the graphics information may be associated with played content such as a video game, wherein the terrain simulation component may receive some of the graphics information from a user). Penmatsa further discloses where the event is associated with a location of occurrence in three-dimensional space (Col. 7, ln. 23-40). However, Penmatsa may not further explicitly disclose, based on an operation input of a player, moving a player character in the virtual space. Nevertheless, Sato, directed to a game where a player character is moved in a virtual space and caused to perform an attack action ([0002]), teaches this limitation ([0002]; [0008]; [0085]; [0108]; [0138], where the player character is moved in a virtual space in accordance with an operation input provided by a player, and further, where the player character can perform an attack action (destruction action) based on the operation input by the player). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the user input information to further comprise a movement input, aside from a destruction event, as taught by Sato, to provide additional user input in the game and/or to perform destruction event(s) at different locations, where the graphics information (simulated terrain and destruction event, with a corresponding location) in Penmatsa is received based on user input (Penmatsa, Col. 7, ln. 23-40).
Regarding claim 2, Penmatsa further discloses wherein the voxel satisfying the predetermined criterion is a voxel in which the damage exceeds a damage upper limit set in advance in a case where the damage is increased by the destruction action (Col. 2, ln. 38-51; Col. 2, ln. 58-Col. 3, ln. 19; Col. 3, ln. 19-35; Col. 7, ln. 23-Col. 8, ln. 7; Col. 8, ln. 60-Col. 9, ln. 40; Col. 12, ln. 17-Col. 13, ln. 8, wherein based on the intensity of the destruction event and the preconfigured destructibility value of each affected layer of each affected area, one or more layers of the affected area may be destroyed and the one or more destroyed layers are removed).
Regarding claim 3, Penmatsa further discloses wherein the image processing further comprises, if the destruction action is performed, determining a hit position where the destruction action hits the virtual object (Col. 7, ln. 23-63, determining which area(s) of the simulated space are affected by the destruction event), and the voxel satisfying the predetermined criterion is a voxel that is included in a predetermined range including the hit position and has a predetermined damage value (Col. 7, ln. 23-Col. 8, ln. 7; Col. 8, ln. 60-Col. 9, ln. 40; Col. 12, ln. 17-Col. 13, ln. 8, wherein based on the intensity of the destruction event and the preconfigured destructibility value of each affected layer of each affected area, one or more layers of the affected area may be destroyed and the one or more destroyed layers are removed (e.g., where blocks at the zones of the highest intensity (i.e., destruction event center) may be destroyed and removed as a result of the destruction event and replaced with free space)).
Regarding claim 4, Penmatsa further discloses wherein the image processing further comprises making a contact determination between the polygon mesh or a determination polygon mesh representing the surface of the virtual object generated for a determination and a determination shape set based on the destruction action, thereby determining the hit position (Fig. 6; Col. 7, ln. 23-63; Col. 8, ln. 2-7 & 26-59; Col. 8, ln. 60-Col. 9, ln. 40; Col. 12, ln. 48-59; Col. 14, ln. 16-24, determine which area(s) of the simulated space (divided into multiple three-dimensional volumes or voxels and forming a terrain model using voxel-based mesh generation) are affected by the destruction event having an intensity, origin, direction, or combination thereof).
Regarding claim 5, Penmatsa further discloses wherein the voxel values further include data indicating hardness or a kind of material of the voxel (Col. 2, ln. 6-29; Col. 7, ln. 1-22; Col. 8, ln. 26-59, where at least one layer characteristic of the three-dimensional graphics information (terrain) may include material or composition (e.g., rock, sand, concrete, free space, etc.), where each material of terrain has a destructibility value that is based on a preconfigured strength associated with each type of material or composition), and the image processing further comprises in a case where the destruction action hits the virtual object, and if the voxel satisfying the predetermined criterion is present, updating the voxel value of a voxel having hardness less than or equal to predetermined hardness or a predetermined kind of material to a density indicating that the virtual object is not present (Col. 2, ln. 38-51; Col. 3, ln. 19-35; Col. 7, ln. 23-Col. 8, ln. 7; Col. 8, ln. 60-Col. 9, ln. 40; Col. 12, ln. 17-Col. 13, ln. 8, wherein based on the intensity of the destruction event and the preconfigured destructibility value of each affected layer of each affected area, the extent to which each area is affected is determined, and the textures/layer characteristics and/or destructibility value of each affected layer of each affected area is modified, where one or more layers of an affected area may be destroyed and the one or more destroyed layers are removed and replaced with free space).
Regarding claim 6, Penmatsa further discloses where the erasure range is a sphere (Fig. 6; Col. 12, ln. 48-59, e.g., destruction event 602 with center (highest intensity) zone 618 and additional zones 620, 622, 624, and 626) an ellipsoid, or a shape obtained by asymmetrically deforming an ellipsoid.
Regarding claim 7, Penmatsa further discloses wherein the virtual object is a terrain in the virtual space (Fig. 4A; Col. 2, ln. 6-29; Col. 2, ln. 52-Col. 3, ln. 18; Col. 3, ln. 62-Col. 4, ln. 12; Col. 6, ln. 34-67; Col. 7, ln. 1-22, where the three-dimensional volumes or voxels may be represented by graphics information corresponding to terrain).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is an information processing system of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is an information processing system of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is an information processing system of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is an information processing system of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is an information processing system of claim 5 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is an information processing system of claim 6 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is an information processing system of claim 7 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is an information processing apparatus of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is an information processing apparatus of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is an information processing apparatus of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is an information processing method of claim 1 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is an information processing method of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is an information processing method of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penmatsa in view of Sato, as applied to claims 1 and 9, and in further view of Kapulkin et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0342823 A1) (hereinafter “Kapulkin”) and Geiss, Ryan, “Chapter 1. Generating Complex Procedural Terrains Using the GPU”, GPU Gems 3, 17 pages (12/27/19) (hereinafter “Geiss”).
Regarding claim 8, Penmatsa does not further disclose wherein the image processing further comprises based on the density, generating the polygon mesh by an algorithm for placing a polygon so that vertex positions are determined between a voxel defined as being inside the virtual object and a voxel defined as being outside the virtual object. However, Geiss teaches this limitation (p. 2, describing the use of a density function for describing the terrain surface, wherein for any point in 3D space, the function produces a single floating-point value, the values varying over space wherein if the value is positive, then that point in space is inside the solid terrain but if the value is negative, then that point is located in empty space, and where the boundary between positive and negative values, where the density value is zero, is the surface of the terrain along which the polygonal mesh is constructed). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the described marching cubes algorithm of Geiss in order to achieve the result of generating the polygon mesh in Penmatsa (Geiss, p. 2; Penmatsa, Col.14, ln. 16-24, where the terrain model may be rendered using, for example, a voxel-based mesh generation technique).
Penmatsa further does not disclose wherein the image processing further comprises if the destruction action is performed, recalculating vertices of the polygon mesh in a range including a voxel of which at least the voxel values are updated. However, Kapulkin, directed to displaying objects and landscapes in a virtual world ([0002]), teaches this limitation ([0015]; [0031], dividing the voxel grid into individual regions (polygon meshes) and redetermining (recalculating) only in one of the individual regions (polygon mesh in a range) in response to the player causing an object (including a voxel) to be moved (voxel data is updated)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recalculate vertices of the polygon mesh based on changes of the objects/updates of voxel values of voxels, as taught by Kapulkin, in Penmatsa in order to adjust the displayed virtual object, or surface thereof, in accordance with changes to the object (e.g., damage/destruction) (Kapulkin, [0015]; [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is an information processing system of claim 8 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2024/0082721 A1 – This reference teaches where a rock object is placed in virtual space, and a player may hit the rock object to destroy it.
U.S. Pub. 2023/0310999 A1 – This reference teaches where if a destruction threshold is met, an in-game object may be removed from the game environment.
Hello! Stream Square, Episode 304: “Teardown”, an action game challenging a robbery mission in a world where anything can be destroyed, 4Gamer.net, November 6, 2020 – This reference teaches a game world built with voxels, where players can destroy virtual objects via a destruction action (e.g., driving a car into a wall will cause a hole of a similar size to appear).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights