I work in patents. If it wasn't novel it wouldn't be granted, believe me.
My experience with clients has led me to never trust lay people's judgements on what is or is not novel.
Feel free to actually read the examiner's comments in this patent application for an actually full understanding of the process
Or better still if you think you are able to assess novelty though a 5 minute cursory read of a patent without any reference to prior art, feel free to do my job for me. You're clearly much more efficient and unbiased and definitely aren't cutting any corners in your evaluation. Both in understanding the law and understanding how to assess novelty in a proper way.
I work in patents. If it wasn't novel it wouldn't be granted, believe me.
I work in computer graphics software. My former employer preferred that engineers liberally apply for “defensive” patents because of how often people would get a patent for something we already did and then try to sue us for it. Plus we got a small cash bonus when our patents were approved. Through this process, I was granted six patents for my work there. It would be unwise to put something to text that could be used as evidence to invalidate the patents, so I’ll just say that my opinion on how low the bar is to getting software patents approved is definitely well-informed.
understanding the law and understanding how to assess novelty in a proper way
I’ll admit I have little understanding of the legal definition of “novel”, but insofar as the intent of the patent system, the current bar is way too low for software patents. Although remedied recently, the plethora of software patents that still exist for “(Something people have done for decades) but do it on a computer” is ridiculous.
If it was something you already did prior to filing and you could prove it then their case would be extremely flimsy, but I do understand where you come from.
It really depends on jurisdiction, in the UK it's not possible to even patent software. In Europe it is, but regulations are strict. The US patent law is a little bit wonky in this regard.
You've not even referenced the claims of the patent, which is actually what is protected. It's already extremely likely the examiner has flagged these up as prior art and more and still passed it as allowable after a thorough novelty search and several rounds of amendments. Lots of things are sort of like other inventions but what they actually do lies outside of the claim scope.
The invention is not what is patented, the claims are. There are undoubtedly novel features in the claims or again the examiner wouldn't allow it.
Barring a performance of a full novelty search where you break down the claims and compare them to the prior art individually, you aren't convincing me that the claims aren't novel.
Assessing novelty is one of the most difficult parts of being a patent attorney and can't be done with a cursory search.
A locomotion system for controlling animation of a character in a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment comprising: a rendering engine; a core system logic communicatively coupled to the rendering engine for executing core game logic of the virtual environment …
This is basically a description of a game engine that supports movement and animation. Descent (1994) would be the earliest production use of such an engine.
The locomotion system of claim 1, wherein a key identifies one or more variables of the blackboard, the key comprising a human readable name associated with the variables to provide the selection criteria.
Congratulations, you just described “variables”, a concept at least as old as ENIAC (1945).
The locomotion system of claim 1, wherein the core game logic defines one or more desired physical movements to sequence the motion type objects blocks.
Yes, that’s one way to describe “animation”
The locomotion system of claim 1, wherein a selected archetype block defines a fallback archetype block, the fallback archetype block defining at least one new motion animation block or motion type block not present in the selected archetype block and inheriting any remaining motion type blocks and motion animation blocks from the selected archetype block.
Variables having a default value is the default behavior of most programming languages and software systems.
The locomotion system of claim 1, wherein a selected archetype block defines the character's default animation.
Yea, we’re talking about animation here. Default value of animation description = default animation.
The locomotion system of claim 1, wherein a selected archetype block of the character is unique from a second archetype block of a second character and at least one motion type block is common across the character and the second character.
Inheritance, a property of most software designs since the 1980s.
The locomotion system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the motion animation blocks, the motion type blocks, and the archetype blocks is defined by a series of extensible markup language (XML)-based meta files.
Storing configuration in a data file. You’d be hard pressed to find an alternative. Maybe some genius will come along and find some way to represent it in JSON…
The locomotion system of claim 1, wherein a selected attribute of a selected motion animation block includes at least one of a clip set that is used by a selected motion of the character, an overloadable animation blend tree to be used for the selected motion, named additional clips within specific clip sets, parametric blends from sets that can be named, a Boolean that specifies whether play speed of the selected motion can be modified, a minimum speed, and a maximum speed.
This seems to be the main claim of the patent, but seems to have a huge amount of prior art (see links). “Parametric blends” and other terms are just jargon.
The locomotion system of claim 1, wherein the attributes of the motion animation block are custom float values.
Oh my god. Really? Shall we also include “doubles”, “halfs”, or maybe “rationals”?
The locomotion system of claim 1, further comprising one or more transition tables to control a relationship between motion animation blocks.
“Translation table” seems to just be referring to the graph topology of the system. Yes, graphs are the most common way to represent arbitrary N:M relationships.
The locomotion system of claim 1, further comprising an in-game graphical user interface for real-time modification of at least one of the motion animation blocks, the motion type blocks, and the archetype blocks.
Node-based editing; standard practice in all 3D modeling.
A computer-implemented method for controlling animation of a character in a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment comprising: executing core game logic to render the virtual environment using a core system logic communicatively coupled to a rendering engine …
Yes, you already described what a game engine is and an animation system is. Game engines certainly do have animation systems…
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein said animating the character further comprises identifying a second archetype block, the common set of motion type blocks and the motion animation blocks of the second archetype block altering the animation of the character as a game story defined by the core game logic develops.
Picking animation keys based on game logic. What else would you base it on exactly?
The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein said animating the character further comprises identifying a fallback archetype block of the archetype block, the fallback archetype block defining at least one new motion animation block or motion type block not present in the selected archetype block and inheriting any remaining motion type blocks and motion animation blocks from the selected archetype block.
Yes, default values do be defaultin’.
A computer program product for controlling animation of a character in a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment, the computer program product including a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a device to cause the device to perform a method comprising: executing core game logic to render the virtual environment using a core system logic communicatively coupled to a rendering engine …
Yep, software sure does run on computers. Computers are neat. And they have storage.
The computer program product of claim 15, wherein said animating the character further comprises identifying a second archetype block, the common set of motion type objects blocks and the motion animation blocks of the second archetype block altering the animation of the character as a game story defined by the core game logic develops.
Are we really going to enumerate all the permutations of engine + animation + defaults claims?
The computer program product of claim 15, wherein said animating the character further comprises identifying a fallback archetype block of the archetype block, the fallback archetype block defining at least one new motion animation block or motion type block not present in the selected archetype block and inheriting any remaining motion type objects blocks and motion animation blocks from the selected archetype block.
All the claims except 8 are “obvious” IMO. Claim 8 fails novelty because of the huge amount of prior art on the matter.
Note that I’m using “novelty” and “obvious” according to their english definitions, and the intent of patent protection. If they’re different in practice, that’s a failing of current patent law.
If you think you can do better than a patent office examiner get on it because they're extremely well paid.
Or maybe you could stop and draw a line under what you think is correct. Have you ever considered the possibility that actually you haven't got the first clue how to properly analyse a patent because it's a profession that requires extensive training and eye to detail?
I know on the internet it's fun to pretend you actually know everything because everything is a Google search away but to even properly contextualise and separate good patents and bad patents isn't a skill you can just pick up in 5 minutes to win an argument.
I work in patents. If it wasn't novel it wouldn't be granted, believe me.
My experience with clients has led me to never trust lay people's judgements on what is or is not novel.
Feel free to actually read the examiner's comments in this patent application for an actually full understanding of the process
Or better still if you think you are able to assess novelty though a 5 minute cursory read of a patent without any reference to prior art, feel free to do my job for me. You're clearly much more efficient and unbiased and definitely aren't cutting any corners in your evaluation. Both in understanding the law and understanding how to assess novelty in a proper way.
I work in computer graphics software. My former employer preferred that engineers liberally apply for “defensive” patents because of how often people would get a patent for something we already did and then try to sue us for it. Plus we got a small cash bonus when our patents were approved. Through this process, I was granted six patents for my work there. It would be unwise to put something to text that could be used as evidence to invalidate the patents, so I’ll just say that my opinion on how low the bar is to getting software patents approved is definitely well-informed.
I’ll admit I have little understanding of the legal definition of “novel”, but insofar as the intent of the patent system, the current bar is way too low for software patents. Although remedied recently, the plethora of software patents that still exist for “(Something people have done for decades) but do it on a computer” is ridiculous.
If it was something you already did prior to filing and you could prove it then their case would be extremely flimsy, but I do understand where you come from.
It really depends on jurisdiction, in the UK it's not possible to even patent software. In Europe it is, but regulations are strict. The US patent law is a little bit wonky in this regard.
A brief search shows a variety of publications that seem to do what is described by the patent:
https://history.siggraph.org/learning/neural-animation-layering-for-synthesizing-martial-arts-movements-by-starke-zhao-zinno-and-komura/
https://advances.realtimerendering.com/destiny/siggraph2014/animation/index.html
https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~neff/papers/correlationMapsEG07.pdf
https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/AnimationLayers.html
You've not even referenced the claims of the patent, which is actually what is protected. It's already extremely likely the examiner has flagged these up as prior art and more and still passed it as allowable after a thorough novelty search and several rounds of amendments. Lots of things are sort of like other inventions but what they actually do lies outside of the claim scope.
The invention is not what is patented, the claims are. There are undoubtedly novel features in the claims or again the examiner wouldn't allow it.
Barring a performance of a full novelty search where you break down the claims and compare them to the prior art individually, you aren't convincing me that the claims aren't novel.
Assessing novelty is one of the most difficult parts of being a patent attorney and can't be done with a cursory search.
This is basically a description of a game engine that supports movement and animation. Descent (1994) would be the earliest production use of such an engine.
Congratulations, you just described “variables”, a concept at least as old as ENIAC (1945).
Yes, that’s one way to describe “animation”
Variables having a default value is the default behavior of most programming languages and software systems.
Yea, we’re talking about animation here. Default value of animation description = default animation.
Inheritance, a property of most software designs since the 1980s.
Storing configuration in a data file. You’d be hard pressed to find an alternative. Maybe some genius will come along and find some way to represent it in JSON…
This seems to be the main claim of the patent, but seems to have a huge amount of prior art (see links). “Parametric blends” and other terms are just jargon.
Oh my god. Really? Shall we also include “doubles”, “halfs”, or maybe “rationals”?
“Translation table” seems to just be referring to the graph topology of the system. Yes, graphs are the most common way to represent arbitrary N:M relationships.
Node-based editing; standard practice in all 3D modeling.
Yes, you already described what a game engine is and an animation system is. Game engines certainly do have animation systems…
Picking animation keys based on game logic. What else would you base it on exactly?
Yes, default values do be defaultin’.
Yep, software sure does run on computers. Computers are neat. And they have storage.
Are we really going to enumerate all the permutations of engine + animation + defaults claims?
I guess we are…
You've not even remotely began to asses novelty properly but kudos for trying.
All the claims except 8 are “obvious” IMO. Claim 8 fails novelty because of the huge amount of prior art on the matter.
Note that I’m using “novelty” and “obvious” according to their english definitions, and the intent of patent protection. If they’re different in practice, that’s a failing of current patent law.
For reference, here’s what I would consider to be a “good” software patent: https://patents.justia.com/patent/6721362
They also test for obviousness mate.
If you think you can do better than a patent office examiner get on it because they're extremely well paid.
Or maybe you could stop and draw a line under what you think is correct. Have you ever considered the possibility that actually you haven't got the first clue how to properly analyse a patent because it's a profession that requires extensive training and eye to detail?
I know on the internet it's fun to pretend you actually know everything because everything is a Google search away but to even properly contextualise and separate good patents and bad patents isn't a skill you can just pick up in 5 minutes to win an argument.
Sir you are too level headed for the internet
It's a daily curse.