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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to application 19/170746 filled on 04/04/2025.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sensui (US 2021/0316215 A1) in view of Tang et al. (US 2018/0028918 A1).
In claim 1, anon-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute:
Sensui teaches:
processing of displaying a selection screen including a first display area where a display type of an appearance of an object displayed on a game screen is selectable, and where a common display type with a common appearance for a plurality of objects (Para. 95 wherein displaying a selection screen including a first display area for selecting a display type of an object displayed on a game screen, and wherein the user is presented with selectable icons corresponding to items that can be applied to game characters) or a special display type with different appearances for the plurality of objects is selectable (Para. 96 wherein an icon can correspond to different items depending upon character is taught), and
Sensui does not explicitly teach however Tang teaches:
a second display area where an application range of the display type selected by a player is selectable, and where a predetermined object or a plurality of objects are selectable as the application range (Para. 122, 126, and 128-129 wherein a user can select a character area that is separate from the game scene and wherein the player can tap an avatar or swipe across multiple avatars to select them all at once);
processing of changing a display of the second display area depending on the display type selected, on the selection screen (Para. 125-127 wherein the character selection area changes depending on which character are eligible for the operation);
Sensui further teaches:
processing, in a case where the common display type is selected, of displaying at least the predetermined object with an appearance corresponding to the common display type (Para. 95);
processing, in a case where the special display type is selected and the plurality of objects are selected as the application range, of determining whether a display condition is satisfied for each of the plurality of objects (Para. 95-96 wherein determining whether an appearance is applicating to a character is taught); and
Sensui does not explicitly teach however Tang teaches:
processing of displaying, from among the plurality of objects, an object determined to satisfy the display condition with an appearance corresponding to the special display type (Para. 125-129 wherein selecting a plurality of characters as the target application range and determining eligibility of each character is taught).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify the game system of Sensui to include the target selection interface taught by Tang, thereby allwing a player to select one or many of game objectsh to which a selected display type is to be applied. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide a more efficient user interface for identifying and selecting eligible game objects and applying a selected appearance to the desired object/objects.
As per claim 2, Sensui in view of Tang teach the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein
Sensui further teaches
the object includes an object displayable with an appearance corresponding to the special display type and an object non-displayable with an appearance corresponding to the special display type (Para. 93-96)
Sensui does not explicitly teach however Tang teaches:
identification information for identifying an object displayable with an appearance corresponding to the special display type and an object non-displayable with an appearance corresponding to the special display type is provided (Para. 128-130), and
the program further causes the computer to execute:
processing, in a case where an object non-displayable with an appearance corresponding to the special display type has satisfied a predetermined condition, of enabling the object to be displayed with an appearance corresponding to the special display type (Para. 127-128).
The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 3, Sensui in view of Tang teach non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein
Sensui teaches:
the game screen includes a game screen displaying the object arranged in each of a position 1 and a position 2 (Para. 94 and 96 and Fig. 4,
the program further causes the computer to execute:
processing of enabling a player to select the object arranged in the position 1 or the position 2 (Para. 96-96 and Fig. 4 wherein “when one clothing item icon 204 is selected”,
the predetermined object is an object selected by a player (Para. 96), and
Sensui does not explicitly teach however Tang teaches:
the processing of displaying the selection screen enables, in a case where an object arranged in the position 1 is selected, selection of whether to include all objects arranged in the position 1 as the application range in the second display area or whether to include all objects displayed on the game screen as the application range in the second display area (Para. 127-130), and
enables, in a case where an object arranged in the position 2 is selected, selection of whether to include all objects arranged in the position 2 as the application range in the second display area or whether to include all objects displayed on the game screen as the application range in the second display area (Para. 127-130).
The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
Claims 4-5 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
