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 § 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 17 and 19 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Camus et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0256326 A1).
As to claims 1 and 12, Camus shows a system 100 (Fig. 1 and para. 34) and associated methodology (Fig. 10 and para. 78) for customizing the appearance of a digital game (Figs. 4 and 5 and paras. 41, 42, 45 and 46), comprising: at least one memory 306 for storing computer-executable instructions (Fig. 3 and para. 39); and at least one processor 304 for executing the instructions stored on the at least one memory (Fig. 3 and paras. 38 and 39), wherein execution of the instructions programs the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receiving content from a user (i.e. an image, Fig. 10 and para. 78) ; analyzing the content to identify at least one content feature (i.e. specification, for example, Fig. 10 and para. 79); obtaining at least one custom game element corresponding to the at least one content feature (i.e. providing virtual vehicle in step 1060 and/or providing alternative in step 1065, Fig. 10 and para. 84); and generating a custom appearance scheme for the digital game that includes the at least one custom game element (i.e. providing new interface tools/features based on characteristics/specification within the image, Figs. 4, 5 and 10 and paras. 41, 42, 45, 46 and 84).
As to claims 2 and 13, Camus shows applying the custom appearance scheme to a level of the digital game (i.e. opportunities to level up, para. 84).
As to claims 3 and 14, Camus shows obtaining a default appearance scheme for the digital game including a plurality of default game elements (i.e. no classification/association is found, Fig. 10 and paras. 80 and 83), wherein generating the custom appearance scheme for the digital game includes replacing at least one default game element with the at least one custom game element (i.e. a classification/association is found, Fig. 10 and para. 84).
As to claims 4 and 15, Camus shows that obtaining the at least one custom game element includes selecting the at least one custom game element from a game element library (i.e. database 120/customization module 906, Figs. 1 and 9 and paras. 34, 72 and 84).
As to claims 5 and 16, Camus shows that the game element library is stored in at least one database (i.e. database 120/customization module 906, Figs. 1 and 9 and paras. 34, 72 and 84).
As to claims 6 and 17, Camus shows that obtaining the at least one custom game element includes generating the at least one custom game element (i.e. additional customization, ability to level up, etc. , Fig. 10 and para. 84).
As to claims 9 and 20, Camus shows that the content includes an image (Fig. 10 and para. 79).
As to claims 10 and 21, Camus shows that the content features include colors represented in the content (Fig. 5 and para. 45).
As to claims 11 and 22, Camus shows that the at least one custom game element includes colors (Fig. 5 and para. 45).
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 7, 8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camus in view of Roach et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0076900 A1).
As to claims 7 and 18, Camus does not show that evaluating the at least one content feature to determine if the at least one content feature corresponds to licensed content; and in response to a determination that the at least one content feature corresponds to licensed content, determining whether the digital game has a license to use the licensed content.
Roach shows the process of evaluating data to determine a correspondence to licensed content (Fig. 1 and para. 93); and in response to a determination that the data corresponds to licensed content, making a determination as to license compliance (Fig. 1 and para. 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Camus with those of Roach because designing the system in this way allows the device to prevent a boot sequence in a manner that does not affect the rights of any person playing the game (para. 93).
As to claims 8 and 19, Camus does not show that determining whether the digital game has a license to use the licensed content includes querying at least one database.
Roach shows that making the determination regarding license compliance includes querying at least one database (Fig. 1 and para. 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Camus with those of Roach because designing the system in this way allows the device to prevent a boot sequence in a manner that does not affect the rights of any person playing the game (para. 93).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights