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 .
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 02/13/2026. Presently, claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, 18-19 and 21 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s representative alleges the following:
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the process of content synchronization between different terminal devices disclosed in Ratias is different from the process of synchronously eliminating the occlusion object in different terminal devices as defined in claim 1.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Ratias only teaches player information synchronization between different devices.
Regarding point (1), the examiner notes that Ratias is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
Applicant’s representative argues in page 10 of Remarks that the first occlusion object elimination instruction is generated by the first terminal device in response to an elimination operation on the first terminal device, the first occlusion object elimination instruction is transmitted to the second terminal device, the first occlusion object elimination instruction carries a position or an identification of the occlusion object, and the process of eliminating the occlusion object displayed in different terminal devices synchronously is implemented based the position or identification of the occlusion object carried in the first occlusion object elimination instruction.
In response to the arguments above, the office action relies on a newly found prior art reference of Dong-Gweon Oh (US 20050059491 A1) (necessitated by applicant’s amendment) to teach that the first occlusion object elimination instruction carries a position or an identification of the occlusion object. (See 103 rejection in office action below).
Regarding point (2), the examiner notes that Ratias is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
Applicant’s representative argues in page 10 of Remarks that paragraphs 0435 to 0440 of Ratias at most disclose that the method for synchronizing content between a first electronic device and a second electronic device may be used in VR or AR Games to update the player profile in the second device when a new player enters or the player profile changes during game.
In response to the arguments above, Ratias teaches synchronizing content from a first electronic device and a second electronic device in response to an input signal, this is not limited only to “player information synchronization between different devices”, paragraphs 435 to 440 are examples of cases but not limited to them (see paragraph 95). However, the office action relies on a newly found prior art reference of Dong-Gweon Oh (US 20050059491 A1) (necessitated by applicant’s amendment) to teach the game scenario screen synchronization between different devices.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, since they recite similar features to claim 1, they will be rejected with the newly found prior art as stated above. Therefore, the rejection is present as below.
Applicant’s representative argues that since Ratias does not disclose or suggest the suggested features of claim 1, 18-19 and so, dependent claims are patentable. However, in light of the remarks and standing rejection below, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all the elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections is presented as below.
Claim 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, 3-7, 9-14, 16, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENG HANZONG (CN105080140B SEE-TRANSLATION; hereinafter Deng) in view of Baynes et al. (US 20110256912 A1; hereinafter Baynes) in view of Dong-Gweon Oh (US 20050059491 A1; hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, Deng discloses a method for information control in a game, performed by a first terminal device (computer used for games can be a terminal; ¶ 48), and comprising: displaying an occlusion object in a first graphical user interface provided by the first terminal device (interface includes an occlusion; ¶ 33-34) and a second graphical user interface provided by a second terminal device (interface includes an occlusion in ¶ 33-34 and this element can be passed to the second client in ¶44) in response to an occlusion object triggering event (triggered by player’s choice; ¶ 68), wherein the first graphical user interface comprises a first game scenario screen (first client display; ¶ 46), the first game scenario screen matches with a second game scenario screen comprised in the second graphical user interface (passing the same element from first to second terminal matches what is shown on the screen; ¶ 44), and the occlusion object is used for blocking at least a part of the first game scenario screen and at least a part of the second game scenario screen (obscures at least one element of the element in the display; ¶ 34); in response to an elimination operation for the occlusion object displayed in the first graphical user interface (there can be an elimination of an element in ¶ 73), eliminating at least a part of the occlusion object displayed in the first graphical user interface (¶ 73). Deng discloses additional limitations for claim 18 such as an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory (¶ 95), wherein the memory stores with a machine-executable instruction capable of being executed by the processor, and the processor executes the machine-executable instruction to implement the method (inherent to a computer; ¶ 48). Deng discloses additional limitations for claim 19 such as a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (¶ 95), wherein the machine-readable storage medium stores with a machine-executable instruction, when invoked and executed by a processor, the machine-executable instruction enables the processor to implement a method (inherent to a computer; ¶ 48). Deng does not explicitly disclose the first game scenario screen displayed in the first terminal device is under a first viewing angle of a first character, the second game scenario screen displayed in the second terminal device is under a second viewing angle of a second character, the first character and the second character correspond to a same virtual object, and generating a first occlusion object elimination instruction, wherein the first occlusion object elimination instruction carries a position or an identification of the occlusion object, and the first occlusion object elimination instruction is sent to the second terminal device for indicating the second terminal device to eliminate at least a part of the occlusion object displayed in the second graphical user interface too.
However, Baynes focuses on a computer racing game on multiple clients with obstacles, which relates to Deng because there in an interaction between clients in this type of game. Baynes teaches the first game scenario screen displayed in the first terminal device is under a first viewing angle of a first character (car 410 and every player has a viewing angle in a multiplayer car racing game in Fig 4 and Fig 1 shows multiple client computers 120), the second game scenario screen displayed in the second terminal device is under a second viewing angle of a second character (competitor vehicle 425 and every player has a viewing angle in a multiplayer car racing game in Fig 4 and Fig 1 shows multiple client computers 120), the first character and the second character correspond to a same virtual object (both car 410 and competitor car 425 are the same type of virtual object; Fig 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to implement the teachings of Baynes for the benefit of implementing information control between different clients used for a multiplayer racing game so that players can interact or collaborate with each other.
Oh focuses on data synchronization in multiplayer games that includes a plurality of devices. This related to Deng because they are both focused on passing game data or elements between clients. Oh teaches generating a first occlusion object elimination instruction (this is just an instruction to synchronize objects such as generating and deleting objects; ¶15), wherein the first occlusion object elimination instruction carries a position or an identification of the occlusion object (a position of the object is an attribute of the object; ¶15), and the first occlusion object elimination instruction is sent to the second terminal device for indicating the second terminal device to eliminate at least a part of the occlusion object (this is transmitted to other clients; ¶15) displayed in the second graphical user interface too (here is an example of how it would work with a tank in the graphical display; ¶30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to implement the teachings of Oh for the benefit of synchronizing content and information between different clients used for a multiplayer game. This is important because if there are changes happening in inside the video game, in a multiplayer environment, there must be a synchronization of content and information between all the clients inside this multiplayer environment.
Regarding claim 3, Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein a preset viewing angle difference is provided between the first game scenario screen and the second game scenario screen; the viewing angle difference comprises a viewing angle difference between the first viewing angle of the first character and the second viewing angle of the second character; or the first game scenario screen is the same as the second game scenario screen.
However, Baynes focuses on a computer racing game on multiple clients with obstacles, which relates to Deng because there in an interaction between clients in this type of game. Baynes teaches wherein a preset viewing angle difference is provided between the first game scenario screen and the second game scenario screen (a preset viewing angle difference is inherent because these are two different cars at different positions); the viewing angle difference comprises a viewing angle difference between the first viewing angle of the first character and the second viewing angle of the second character; or the first game scenario screen is the same as the second game scenario screen (same scenario shown in Fig 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to implement the teachings of Baynes for the benefit of implementing information control between different clients used for a multiplayer racing game and implementing different viewing angles for different players because they are at different positions during the race.
Regarding claim 4, Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein the virtual object is controlled by the second terminal device to move in a game scene according to a received operation instruction; and in response to movement of the virtual object in the game scene, the first game scenario screen and the second game scenario screen are adjusted simultaneously.
However, Baynes focuses on a computer racing game on multiple clients with obstacles, which relates to Deng because there in an interaction between clients in this type of game. Baynes teaches wherein the virtual object is controlled by the second terminal device to move in a game scene according to a received operation instruction (the car is controlled by the player; ¶ 0004); and in response to movement of the virtual object in the game scene, the first game scenario screen and the second game scenario screen are adjusted simultaneously (inherent to a racing game, while traversing the track, the scenario screen is adjusted simultaneously).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to implement the teachings of Baynes for the benefit of implementing information control between different clients used for a multiplayer racing game and understanding how the racing scenario is adjusted depending on the position of the player while traversing the race track.
Regarding claim 5, Deng does not explicitly disclose wherein the occlusion object triggering event comprises one of the following: the virtual object moves to a specified position in the game scene; virtual weather in the game scene where the virtual object is currently located is a specified weather type; or a specified prop is triggered and acts on the virtual object.
However, Baynes focuses on a computer racing game on multiple clients with obstacles, which relates to Deng because there in an interaction between clients in this type of game. Baynes teaches wherein the occlusion object triggering event comprises one of the following: the virtual object moves to a specified position in the game scene; virtual weather in the game scene where the virtual object is currently located is a specified weather type; or a specified prop is triggered and acts on the virtual object (specific prop like blowing up a bridge; ¶ 0064).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to implement the teachings of Baynes for the benefit of implementing information control between different clients used for a multiplayer racing game and implementing obstacles in a racing game to make it more challenging or test player skill.
Regarding claim 6, Deng discloses wherein the occlusion object displayed in the first graphical user interface and the second graphical user interface is the same; or a preset viewing angle difference is provided between the occlusion object displayed in the first graphical user interface and the occlusion object displayed in the second graphical user interface (The occlusion object will be the same because it's being passed from the first client to the second client; ¶ 70); and the viewing angle difference comprises a viewing angle difference between the first viewing angle of the first character and the second viewing angle of the second character (inherent because different players are different positions will have a viewing angle difference).
Regarding claim 7, Deng discloses wherein the step of generating the first occlusion object elimination instruction in response to the elimination operation for the occlusion object comprises: generating, in response to a sliding operation acting on the occlusion object (slide; ¶ 73), the first occlusion object elimination instruction, wherein the sliding operation is used for indicating to eliminate at least the part of the occlusion object (¶ 74).
Regarding claim 9, Deng discloses wherein generating the first occlusion object elimination instruction in response to the elimination operation for the occlusion object comprises: generating, in response to a click operation acting on the occlusion object (click; ¶ 73), the first occlusion object elimination instruction, wherein the click operation is used for indicating to delete at least the part of the occlusion object (¶ 74).
Regarding claim 10, Deng discloses wherein the occlusion object comprises more than one occlusion object, and the step of generating the first occlusion object elimination instruction in response to the click operation acting on the occlusion object comprises: obtaining, in response to the click operation acting on the occlusion object (¶ 73), a target occlusion object acted by the click operation (¶ 73); and generating the first occlusion object elimination instruction based on the target occlusion object (¶ 74), wherein the first occlusion object elimination instruction is used for indicating to eliminate the target occlusion object (¶ 74).
Regarding claim 12, Deng discloses wherein at least the part of the occlusion object eliminated in the first graphical user interface is the same as at least the part of the occlusion object eliminated in the second graphical user interface (the same elements in the first client are being passed to the second client; ¶ 70).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Deng discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, in response to a second occlusion object elimination instruction (there can be multiple obstacles in ¶ 68 and they can be continuously eliminated in ¶ 74) sent by the second terminal device (second client can perform the slide or click operation; ¶ 72), the occlusion object to be eliminated indicated by the second occlusion object elimination instruction; and eliminating the occlusion object to be eliminated in the first graphical user interface (eliminated in first client; ¶ 74).
Regarding claim 14, Deng discloses wherein the method further comprises: detecting, in response to the elimination operation for the occlusion object (elimination operation like click or slide; ¶ 73), a state of the occlusion object being eliminated (¶ 73); and in response to determining that the state of the occlusion object being eliminated satisfies a specified condition (operation of the player; ¶ 74), triggering a preset reward mechanism, wherein the reward mechanism comprises updating a game score of the first terminal device and/or the second terminal device, or providing a specified game prop to the first terminal device and/or the second terminal device (operation score; ¶ 75).
Regarding claim 16, Deng discloses wherein the method further comprises: displaying operation indication information in the first graphical user interface (displayed on the interface; ¶ 73), wherein the operation indication information is used for prompting a specified condition required to be satisfied by a state of the occlusion object being eliminated (this is the operation of the player; ¶ 74 and ¶ 81).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view Baynes in view of Oh in view of ZHONG WEI (CN109731326A SEE-TRANSLATION; hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding claim 8, Deng discloses wherein, generating the first occlusion object elimination instruction in response to the sliding operation acting on the occlusion object comprises: obtaining, in response to the sliding operation acting on the occlusion object (the elements may eliminate or swap positions as seen in ¶ 51 but does not disclose a target position of the occlusion object). Deng does not explicitly disclose a target position passing by the sliding operation on the occlusion object; and generating the first occlusion object elimination instruction based on the target position, wherein the first occlusion object elimination instruction is used for indicating to eliminate the occlusion object at the target position and the occlusion object within a preset range from the target position.
However, Zhong focuses on a video game that uses target positions which relates to Deng because there is a position for each element displayed on the screen. Zhong teaches a target position passing by the sliding operation on the occlusion object (blocking area has their position mapped into a coordinate system; ¶ 16); and generating the first occlusion object elimination instruction based on the target position (the blocking area is mapped into the coordinate system and removed; ¶ 16), wherein the first occlusion object elimination instruction is used for indicating to eliminate the occlusion object at the target position and the occlusion object within a preset range from the target position (preset range of the blocking area is from a boundary line of the second area and along a positive direction of the Y-axis; ¶ 15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to implement the teachings of Zhong for the benefit of eliminating or cleaning up an element on a target position or in proximity to the target position for better resource management or performance optimization of the game.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Baynes in view of Oh in view of LUO JIAN (CN108888950A SEE-TRANSLATION; hereinafter Luo).
Regarding claim 15, Deng discloses wherein the specified condition comprises one of an area of the occlusion object being eliminated is greater than or equal to a specified area (multiple obstacles on the interface point to the area being greater or equal in size; ¶ 68), wherein the specified area is provided with a preset area shape and/or a preset area size (reserved area indicates being preset; ¶61). Deng does not disclose a path shape of the occlusion object being eliminated is a specified path shape; or a number of the occlusion object being eliminated is greater than or equal to a specified number.
However, Luo focuses on a game that eliminates objects by following certain conditions, which relates to Deng because there are objects in Deng being eliminated by following certain conditions. Luo teaches a path shape of the occlusion object being eliminated is a specified path shape; or a number of the occlusion object being eliminated is greater than or equal to a specified number (when reaching a certain threshold, eliminate elements; ¶ 86).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to implement the teachings of Baynes for the benefit of eliminating elements once they reach a certain threshold for visual clarity, better resource management or performance optimization of the game.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715