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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “machine-controller player” in line 12 of the claim. The examiner suggests amending the claim to instead read “machine-controlled player.”
Claim 14 recites “machine-controller player” in line 14 of the claim. The examiner suggests amending the claim to instead read “machine-controlled player.”
Claim 19 recites “machine-controller player” in line 13 of the claim. The examiner suggests amending the claim to instead read “machine-controlled player.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “controlling virtual roles in the second camp to attack virtual roles in the first camp” in line 14 of the claim. It is unclear if the machine-controlled player is the one controlling just the one role, or all the roles of the second camp. Furthermore, it is unclear the game condition if the randomly selected machine-controlled player is eliminated by the first camp’s virtual roles and if the machine-controlled player just takes over a human-controlled player that was converted to a second camp. For the purpose of examination, the second camp will be treated as a switch over with roles that can switch until the win/lose condition is met and both roles will play the role of the camp they belong to. Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “controlling virtual roles in the second camp to attack virtual roles in the first camp” in line 15 of the claim. It is unclear if the machine-controlled player is the one controlling just the one role, or all the roles of the second camp. Furthermore, it is unclear the game condition if the randomly selected machine-controlled player is eliminated by the first camp’s virtual roles and if the machine-controlled player just takes over a human-controlled player that was converted to a second camp. For the purpose of examination, the second camp will be treated as a switch over with roles that can switch until the win/lose condition is met and both roles will play the role of the camp they belong to. Claims 15-18 depend from claim 14 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “controlling virtual roles in the second camp to attack virtual roles in the first camp” in line 16 of the claim. It is unclear if the machine-controlled player is the one controlling just the one role, or all the roles of the second camp. Furthermore, it is unclear the game condition if the randomly selected machine-controlled player is eliminated by the first camp’s virtual roles and if the machine-controlled player just takes over a human-controlled player that was converted to a second camp. For the purpose of examination, the second camp will be treated as a switch over with roles that can switch until the win/lose condition is met and both roles will play the role of the camp they belong to. Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and is therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (Infected Mode by Activision) as evidenced by YouTube Video by Inkslasher (“The Evolution of Infected (Infected in Every Call of Duty)” April 12, 2019; found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0EsR8kTUvo; hereinafter COD) in view of Ofir Leitner (US 20080016176 A1; hereinafter Leitner).
Regarding claim 1, COD discloses a virtual role control method performed by a computer device, the method comprising: displaying, on a display interface, a virtual scene corresponding to a virtual task of an online game, the virtual scene comprising at least one virtual role belonging to a first camp wherein the at least one virtual role belonging to the first camp is a human-controlled player (as shown in FIG. 1 of the attached NPL there is a game task in an online game, with two teams, the humans and the infected (zombies) and a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would know that to play the game a person would need to display the game on a display interface and play on a computer device);
in response to a user request from a human user of the computer device, randomly selecting one virtual role in the first camp and switching the randomly-selected virtual role from the first camp to a second camp and placing the randomly-selected virtual role at a randomly-selected location in the virtual scene, wherein the randomly- selected virtual role in the second camp is player, and starting the virtual task at the end of a clock countdown (as shown in FIGs 11-12 of the attached NPL after entering a game there is a period where the role of the players is randomly selected to start the game; everyone who is spawned in is in a random area and have a few seconds before the role selection happens (as displayed with a clock countdown on the display interface) another task then starts with another clock countdown);
controlling virtual roles in the second camp to attack virtual roles in the first camp using a close-in weapon during the virtual task (as shown in FIGs 3 and 5, of the attached NPL the virtual roles in the second camps (aside from the first randomly selected role (until they secure their first kill)) the roles of the second camp use a close-in weapon, such as melee weapons to attack the first camp).
after detecting a collision between a collision frame of the close-in weapon with a collision frame of a first target virtual role in the first camp, switching the first target virtual role from the first camp to the second camp (as shown in FIG. 6 of the attached NPL, when a role of the second camp attacks a role belonging to the second camp, the role is switched from the first camp to the second camp (from human to zombie)) and upgrading the close-in weapon used for attacking the first target virtual role to a higher level (as shown in FIG 13-18 of the attached NPL, once attacking and killing a role, it will upgrade skills for the weapon and user);
after all the virtual roles of the first camp in the virtual scene are switched to the second camp, displaying that the second camp wins on the display interface (as shown in FIG 7, when the winning condition is met, by either the first camp surviving the clock count down, or by the first roles all converting from the first camp to the second camp, the winning side will know they won. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a win or defeat screen to show the users the end result of the game).
COD doesn’t explicitly disclose a machine-controller player.
Leitner teaches a machine-controller player (“It is important to understand that there is no real difference between a human controlled player and a computer-controlled player (AKA: Enemy). Enemies have the same capabilities that human players have and vice versa. This is mainly due to the fact that a "hero" in one game can be selected as the "enemy" in another. The positive side effect of this is that enemies can be very sophisticated” (recited in at least: Leitner paragraph [0288])).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a machine or computer-controlled player to a video game for the added benefit of allowing players to play with bots for practice and to ensure that games have players available to play versus waiting for a lobby of active human players to be available.
Regarding claim 2, and similarity claim 15, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and COD further teaches wherein the virtual role of the first camp and the virtual role of the second camp have different visual appearances (as shown in FIG 19 of the claim, a virtual role of one camp will have a different visual appearance than one from the other virtual role belonging to the other virtual camp).
Regarding claim 3, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Leitner further teaches when a virtual role of the second camp is killed by a virtual role of the first camp, respawning the virtual role of the second camp at a first location of the virtual scene (“Kill Restart--If set to Yes, when the human player is killed the level restarts. If set to No, the player just reappears and can continue the level from the same spot. When multiple human players are present this decision point is reached only when all of them are dead (recited in at least: Leitner paragraph [0112]))”
Regarding claim 4, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and Leitner further suggests wherein the first location is a location randomly selected before the virtual role of the second camp is respawned (“[0454] The properties of an event object are: [0455] X--Defines the horizontal tile location in which the event will occur. Special values are: [0456] -1--Choose randomly [0457] -2--Choose randomly, but on the visible portion of the screen only. [0458] Y--Defines the vertical tile location in which the event will occur. Special values are the same as in X. [0459] INTERVAL--Defines the time interval between event occurrences: [0460] 0--This event never happens spontaneously but only as a reaction to some kind of a trigger. [0461] Positive Integer--This event will occur each INTERVAL time ticks. [0462] Negative Integer--This event will occur randomly”” (recited in at least: Leitner paragraphs -45=0461])).
Regarding claim 5, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and COD further suggests when the virtual role of the second camp marks a second location, determining the second location as the first location associated with the virtual role of the second camp (player are allowed to ping areas in the game or locations of roles on the other side of the team by pressing the appropriate ping (mark) button for their system (also known as Spotting in the game)).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Applicant is advised that the content of nonfunctional descriptive material will not overcome the prior art where there is no new and nonobvious functional relationship between the material and the underlying computer system, and where the system merely serves as support for information directed toward conveying meaning to a human reader. See MPEP 2111.05(III). In this case the claim is directed to choosing an additional location in game for a virtual role to be resurrected or revived or selecting a random respawn location if one is not provided. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have implemented as many locations as needed for a player to be resurrected according to the game rules and sites available for the added purpose of competitive or relaxed play.
Regarding claim 8, and similarly claim 17, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and COD further suggests when a second target virtual role in the second camp is affected by a virtual role of the first camp by using a first prop, switching a camp to which the second target virtual role belongs from the second camp to the first camp (when a role from one camp kills one role form the other camp the enemy drops a first prop which allows the person to pick up more ammo (as shown in FIG 19) and then they no longer exist in the camp they belonged to after being eliminated and their prop is taken so they could belong to the first camp).
Regarding claim 9, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and COD further teaches wherein the first prop is provided in the virtual scene for pick up (as shown in FIG 18, the ammo can be picked up in the virtual scene).
Regarding claim 10, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and COD further teaches wherein the first prop is provided to a virtual role of the first camp when a quantity of virtual roles in the second camp killed by the virtual role of the first camp is greater than a first threshold (as shown in FIG 18, the ammo can be picked up in the virtual scene when a quantity of virtual roles in the second camp is killed).
Regarding claim 11, and similarly claims 18 and 20, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and COD further teaches wherein the method further comprises: when combat information associated with a virtual role of the first camp meets a predetermined condition, strengthening the virtual roles of the first camp's combat ability (as shown in FIGs 13-18 when a players combat information that is associated with the role, meets a predetermined condition (in COD MW3 Infected mode as shown in the figures) when the roll eliminates players of the other camp and meet the elimination condition, they strengthen their ability with upgrades).
Regarding claim 12, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and COD further teaches wherein strengthening the virtual roles of the first camp's combat ability comprises: upgrading equipment or skill of the virtual roles of the first camp (as shown in FIGs 13-18 of the attached NPL the virtual roles can strengthen by upgrading their skill and/or equipment).
Regarding claim 13, COD in view of Leitner teach the disclosed matter as stated above, and COD further teaches wherein strengthening the virtual roles of the first camp's combat ability comprises: upgrading equipment or skill of the virtual roles of the first camp (as shown in FIGs 13-18 of the attached NPL the virtual roles can strengthen by upgrading their skill and/or equipment).
Regarding claim 14, COD discloses a computer device, comprising a memory and a processor; the memory being configured to store executable instructions; and the processor being configured to (it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to know that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 needs a computer device with memory and a processor to run): when running the executable instructions stored in the memory, implement a virtual role control method including: steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, COD discloses non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computer device (it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to know that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 needs a computer device with memory and a processor to run), causes the computer device to implement a virtual role control method including: steps similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims to include a controlling step has overcome the rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights