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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 3/26/26. Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended and claims 2 and 14 has been previously cancelled. Claims 1, 3 – 13 and 15 – 20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 13 and 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 and 3 – 12 are directed towards a method, (process), and claims 13, and 15 – 20 are directed towards an apparatus and a medium, (machine),which are a statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
1. A virtual resource display method, comprising: displaying at least one target virtual object in a virtual scene in response to at least one target virtual item of the virtual scene reaching a target state through user interaction; controlling the at least one target virtual object to move from an initial display location in the virtual scene in response to received first user input causing a shooting operation on the at least one target virtual object, wherein the at least one target virtual object comprises a first target virtual object and a second target virtual object, and wherein the controlling comprises: controlling a user-controlled virtual object to shoot the first target virtual object in response to the shooting operation on the first target virtual object received first user input; and controlling the first target virtual object to move forward to a first location in response to the first target virtual object being hit by the shooting operation, wherein the first target virtual object is not damaged by the shooting operation; and determining a first difference between the first location and a first target location; determining a second difference between a second location of the second target virtual object and a second target location; and displaying, by processing circuitry, a target virtual resource in the virtual scene in response to the first difference and the second difference meeting a first target condition.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claim 13 and 20. Dependent claims 3 – 12 and 15 - 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for conducting a game)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that executes a video game wherein players control a game character to progress through the game. Controlling a video game that allows a player to progress through the video game represents managing personal behavior. This also represents following rules/instructions that define how the game is conducted.
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention is drawn towards a player controlling a game character to progress through the game by shooting a target object and determining the location of the said target object. The claims recite instructions for controlling a video game with these features. Here, a human can observe and determine whether a shooting operation has been performed on a target object and also observe and determine the location of said target object. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic apparatus along with instructions that generate and present a video game to a player, wherein said player is instructed to control a game character to progress through the game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite a display apparatus and computer-readable storage medium, (see claims 13 and 20), and a game character that is associated with a player, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3 – 13, and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The Division, hereinafter Division in view of The House of Dead 4, hereinafter House.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Division, discloses a virtual resource display method, apparatus, and medium, (2:20:02 of DIVISON), comprising displaying at least one target virtual object in a virtual scene in response to at least one target virtual item of the virtual scene reaching a target state through user interaction, (2:20:10 of DIVISON), controlling a user-controlled virtual object to shoot the first target virtual object in response to the shooting operation on the first target virtual object, (49:57 of DIVISON), determining a first difference between the first location and first target location, determining a second difference between a second location of the second target virtual object and a second target location, (49:50 – 50:00 of DIVISON), and displaying, by processing circuitry, a target virtual resource in the virtual scene in response to a first difference between the first and second location and a first and second target location, (1:44:00 – 1:50:00 of DIVISON).
Division, however, is silent on the issue of controlling a target virtual object from an initial display location in response to a shooting operation, wherein the target virtual object is not damaged by the shooting operation. In a related art, however, House discloses a virtual resource display method comprising controlling a target virtual object to move from an initial display location in the virtual scene in response to received first user input causing a shooting operation on the at least one target virtual, (0:11 – 0:16 of House), object in the figure shown below.
Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
823
1181
media_image1.png
Greyscale
House further discloses wherein target object is not damaged by the shooting operation, (0:11 – 0:38 of House, Boss Life meter not moving while shot by player character), shown in the figure below.
Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
802
1081
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made combine the invulnerable game character of House into the art disclosed by Division in order to encourage strategic thinking rather than mindless button-mashing, which often unlocks greater experience (XP), and unique achievements.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Division discloses wherein the controlling the first target virtual object comprises: controlling the first target virtual object to move in the virtual scene by a target distance in response to the first target virtual object being hit once by the shooting operation, (2:29:52 – 2:30:00 of DIVISON).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Division discloses wherein the at least one target virtual object includes a first target virtual object and a second target virtual object; and the displaying the target virtual resource in the virtual scene includes displaying the target virtual resource in the virtual scene in response to the first target virtual object reaching a first target location and the second target virtual object reaching a second target location, (2:06:43 of DIVISON).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Division discloses wherein the displaying the target virtual resource in the virtual scene in response to the first target virtual object reaching the first target location and the second target virtual object reaching the second target location comprises: displaying the target virtual resource in the virtual scene in response to the first target virtual object reaching the first target location before the second target virtual object reaches the second target location, (2:06:43 of DIVISON).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 18, and 19, Division discloses wherein the displaying the at least one target virtual object in the virtual scene includes displaying the at least one target virtual object at an initial display location of the at least one target virtual object in the virtual scene in response to the at least one target virtual item of the virtual scene reaching the target state; and the method further includes displaying the at least one target virtual object at the initial display location without display of the target virtual resource in response to the location of the at least one target virtual object meeting a second target condition, (2:20:10 of DIVISON).
Regarding claims 8 - 12, Division discloses wherein the at least one target virtual item includes a first target virtual item, and before the displaying the at least one target virtual object, the method further includes: displaying the first target virtual item in the virtual scene; and controlling a user-controlled virtual object to shoot the first target virtual item in response to the shooting operation on the first target virtual item, (2:29:52 – 2:30:00 of DIVISON).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/26/26 been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1, 3 – 13, and 15 – 20, Applicants argue that the “claim limitations are directed to specific technical problems for controlling and displaying virtual objects in a virtual scene, not to agreements in the form of contracts or managing personal behavior”. While the Examiner agrees that the claims are not agreements in the form of contracts, however, the claims are directed to a gaming system that executes a video game wherein players control a game character to progress through the game. Controlling a video game that allows a player to control a game character to progress through the video game represents managing personal behavior, which suggests that the invention is directed to organizing human activities, as discussed in Alice and Bilski v. Kappos.
Applicants further argue that “the amended claims cannot be performed as a mental process”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards determining if conditions are met, the conditions underlined above disclosing shooting operations and determining the location of player characters. These actions related to the game can be observed and determined in the human mind. For example, nothing precludes a human from viewing shooting operations by game characters, nothing precludes a human from determining that the shooting operations are not damaging an enemy character, nothing precludes a human from viewing and determining a location of game characters, and nothing precludes a human from determining that a condition has been met based on said location of game characters. Implementing the claimed invention using electronic elements is merely using computers to implement an abstract idea.
The Applicants further argue that
The Applicants further argue that “the claims are integrated into a practical application”. More specifically, it is argued that “the claimed invention provides a virtual resource display triggering manner, which can motivate users to operate, make the virtual resource display manner more interesting, and improve a virtual resource display effect”, wherein the claims shooting operations and controlling virtual objects as steps that recite this improvement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner views the addition of a virtual display trigger that users may find interesting, as maybe a solution to an artistic problem, but not technical problem, wherein the Examiner views this as not being directed towards an improvement, but as a step for how the game is operated. The current claims are directed towards the controlling of game characters in a video game to progress through the game are merely instructions or steps which are viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception. The control of video game characters, wherein a virtual trigger may be displayed, while controlling the game characters, does not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 3 – 13, and 15 - 20 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights