Swimming effortlessly like a squid on your own ink and diving into it to deceive enemies—Patent No. 6543361 covers this behavior, which creates the unique “feel” of *Splatoon*, as an independent invention.This article analyzes this single patent, citing the original text of Claim 1.The key point is that this patent is a divisional application—a “grandchild” of the core patent No. 5980266—and that it deliberately omits the “match determination” requirement from the parent’s claims. Why is reducing requirements a strategic move? This case is packed with the ingenuity of divisional claims.
Table of Contents
First, let’s verify the basic information of the subject patent using primary sources (the original text on Google Patents). This case involves an application that is a “grandchild” division—a further division of Patent No. 6283072, itself a division of the parent patent No. 5980266.
| Title of the Invention | Information Processing System, Information Processing Program, Information Processing Apparatus, and Information Processing Method |
| Patentee (Applicant) | Nintendo Co., Ltd. |
| Division Application Date | January 25, 2018 |
| Original Application (Direct Parent Application) | Patent Application No. 2016-145245 (= Patent No. 6283072). Furthermore, the parent application for that application is Patent Application No. 2014-100714 (= Patent No. 5980266, filing date May 14, 2014). |
| Registration Date | July 10, 2019 |
| Registration Number | Patent No. 6543361 (JP6543361B2) |
| Claim Category | Claim 1 is for an “information processing program” (Claim 1 of parent application 5980266 is for an “information processing system”) |
The chain of divisions can be diagrammed as follows:
Patent Application 2014-100714 (Patent No. 5980266)
└─ Division → Patent Application 2016-145245(Patent No. 6283072)
└─ Further division → This case (Patent No. 6543361)
Rights have branched out across three generations
—parent, child, and grandchild—from a single original application.
Claim 1, which defines the scope of protection, is quoted here verbatim. It will be compared with the parent patent in a later chapter for reference.
Patent No. 6543361 Claims Claim 1 (Original Text)
“An information processing system equipped with an operation input reception means for receiving user operation inputs, which causes a user character within a virtual space to perform drawing actions based on the operation inputs received by said operation input reception means,causing the rendering area of said virtual space to be colored with the corresponding color of said player character,wherein said game progression means performs display control and/or first movement control of said player character that differs when said player character is located within an area colored in said player character’s corresponding color, as compared to when said player character is located within an area not colored in said player character’s corresponding color.”
This claim is in the form of a program claim that “causes” a computer to function as a specific means. It can generally be broken down into the following parts A through C.
| Claim Elements | Corresponding portion of Claim 1 (Abstract) |
|---|---|
| A (Input) | The present invention relates to an information processing system equipped with an operation input acceptance means for accepting user operation inputs. |
| B (Rendering) | Based on the user input, the system causes the player character to perform drawing actions and functions as a game progression means that colors the drawing area with the corresponding color. |
| C (Behavioral Difference = Core) | The game progression means varies the display control and/or first movement control depending on whether the player character is within an area colored with the player’s color or not. |
The claim concludes with “an information processing program that performs ….” In short, this claim is narrowed down to two points: “painting (B)” and “behavior changing depending on whether the character is on its own ink or not (C).” This constitutes the technical definition of the experience of the character transforming into an octopus and swimming or diving faster on its own ink.
Claim 1 of parent patent 5980266 consisted of a three-point set: “drawing (C) + battle determination (D) + behavioral differences within the user’s color area (E).”In contrast, the grandchild patent 6543361 removes the battle determination (D) from the requirements, narrowing the scope to just two elements: drawing and behavioral differences. When placed side by side, the difference becomes striking.
| Perspective | Patent No. 5980266 (Parent) | Patent No. 6543361 (Grandchild Division) |
|---|---|---|
| Claim Categories | Information Processing System | Information Processing Program |
| Drawing (Filling) | Yes | Yes |
| Match Determination (Win/Loss) | Required Features | Excluded from requirements |
| Behavioral Differences in Own-Color Areas | Yes | Yes (Central to this case) |
Practical Tips (Subtracting Requirements = Expanding Scope): As a general rule, the fewer the elements of a claim, the broader the scope of protection.Patent No. 6543361, which excludes the “match determination” (D) requirement, may cover games that do not have a match or win/loss mechanism—for example, single-player or cooperative games that incorporate only behavioral changes on the player’s own ink.While the parent patent required satisfaction of element D, the grandchild patent does not. Securing a separate, “broader” claim—deliberately narrowing the requirements—from the same specification in this way is a classic example of adjusting the scope of protection through divisional applications.
On the other hand, the broader the scope of protection, the closer it comes to prior art, and the higher the relative risk of grounds for invalidation (lack of novelty or inventive step).Holding both a “broad claim (6543361)” and a “relatively narrow claim that includes match determination (5980266)” is considered to contribute to the robustness of the rights, in the sense that even if one is invalidated, the other will survive.
Although the filing date of the (divisional) application in this case is January 25, 2018, the divisional application is deemed to have been filed at the time of the original application (Patent Law, Article 44, Paragraph 2). Furthermore, even in the case of a divisional application of a divisional application (re-division), as long as it is lawful, the filing date is treated as retroactive to the date of the original application.Consequently, Patent No. 6543361 can, in substance, benefit from the “strong” priority date of May 14, 2014. Although the new claims were filed in 2018, their novelty and non-obviousness are assessed as of 2014—this is the effect of successive divisions.
Note (Requirements for a Division): To obtain retroactive effect, the division must be valid—specifically, the content of the new claims must fall within the scope disclosed in the original application’s specification, etc. (i.e., no new matters may be added).The fact that claims narrowed down in a later year, such as in Patent No. 6543361, could be filed is solely because the specification of the original application filed in 2014 sufficiently disclosed “behavior control in the self-color region,” separate from the battle determination. The thoroughness of the specification at the time of filing determines the degree of flexibility in obtaining rights several years later.
In the practice of patent division, two design approaches are possible.One approach, as seen in Japanese Patent No. 6283072, involves adding limitations to specifically target a particular implementation (separate inputs for movement and drawing plus an attack). The other approach, as seen in Japanese Patent No. 6543361, involves removing limitations to broadly cover only the core element (differences in behavior within the user’s colored area).By including multiple claims with different objectives in the same original application, you can cast a wide net over the diverse implementations of later products. The key to this design lies in the ability to discern which elements constitute the core.
Claim 1 of 6543361 is an “information processing program.”By covering the program category, it becomes easier to treat the distribution or provision of the program (such as download sales) as an act of making the invention available. Aligning claims for products (systems/devices), methods, and programs across their respective categories is a standard strategy for addressing differences in the entities performing the acts and distribution methods.
・Since Patent No. 6543361 has few requirements, it is a claim that is difficult to circumvent formally. As long as the design includes a process that “changes behavior depending on whether the area is its own color,” it is likely to be examined for compliance regardless of whether competitive elements are present.
・Conversely, if the design completely omits this processing (e.g., coloring is present, but the behavior does not change above or below the colored area), it becomes easier to avoid satisfying the literal requirements of this claim, at least. However, an evaluation of the entire patent family—including the parent patent, other divisional applications, and the doctrine of equivalents—is essential; one cannot rest assured by simply avoiding a single claim number.
Patent No. 6543361 is a case where, at the end of a chain of divisional applications—5980266 → 6283072—a program claim was secured that was narrowed down exclusively to “painting (B) + differences in behavior within the user’s own color area (C).”By subtracting the infringement determination from the parent patent, the strategy aims to secure “the tactile feel on one’s own ink” regardless of whether infringement exists—this can be considered an advanced application of a divisional strategy that adjusts the scope by adding or subtracting requirements. Comparing the claims of the parent, child, and grandchild patents clearly illustrates the process by which a single invention is protected from multiple angles.
Consult with Evorix Intellectual Property Firm
At Evorix Intellectual Property Firm (evorix.jp), we offer consultations on software and game-related invention applications, claim drafting utilizing divisional applications, and FTO (freedom-to-operate) searches. To determine how to identify the core invention and from which perspectives to secure protection, please feel free to contact us via the inquiry form.
*This article is intended to provide general information only and does not guarantee conclusions regarding specific cases or the validity of patents or the existence of infringement. The cited claims and bibliographic information are based on publicly available information (patent gazettes and Google Patents) as of the time of writing.Please base your interpretation of the actual scope of protection on the entire specification and the application history.
Splatoon Patent Series (5-part series)