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
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/argument filed 11/5/25. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are pending, Claims 7 and 16 are canceled, and Claims 1, 10, and 19 are currently amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/21/2021 and 12/31/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed certified copies of the 20211122767.8 and 202111672352.8 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-14, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2019/0091561) in view of Mays III (US 2015/0182856), herein Mays, and in further view of PS4 Rapid Fire (https://web.archive.org/web/20201001082754/https://customcontrollerzz.com/ps4-rapid-fire/ ), herein RapidFire.
Claims 1, 10, and 19: Li discloses an electronic device (¶ 22), comprising: a memory (non-transitory computer-readable medium)(¶ 66-68, 71-77) storing computer-executable instructions; a processor (¶ 65), configured to, when executing the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, cause the electronic device to perform a method for controlling a virtual object in a virtual scene (¶ 19, 21-22) including: displaying a virtual scene, the virtual scene comprising a virtual object (¶ 4-5, 19, 21-22, 33); displaying a first action button (302) and a second action button (303), and displaying a connection button (301);
Li teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting in response to a trigger operation for the connection button, controlling the virtual object to execute a first action associated with the first action button and a second action associated with the second action button. Li at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 81). Furthermore, an analogous art of Mays teaches a similar structured method, including a connection button, wherein in response to a trigger operation for the connection button, a virtual object (¶ 95, 107-109) executes a first action associated with a first gamepad control and a second action associated with a second gamepad control (¶ 5, 33, 122, 127). 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 the method of Li such that the connection button of Li executes the first action of the first gamepad control (button) and the second action of the second gamepad control (button) as taught by Mays because such a modification would allow a user to optimize the control interface for different characteristics of a game and/or customized to a user’s preference (Mays - ¶ 5). Such a modification allows the user to provide shortcut for controls within the game. (Mays - ¶ 5, 33).
Li in view of Mays teaches the above, but lack explicitly the first action being executed repetitively and the second action being executed once in response to continuous trigger operation. Li at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of RapidFire teaches that single buttons can be mapped to execute multiple first and second actions of a video game, wherein in response to continuous trigger operation a first action is executed for a virtual object in the video game repetitively and a second action is executed for the virtual object in the video game only once (pg. 2, “Important Information” – R2 or R1 are the trigger buttons used to perform an first action such as firing a weapon, “Rapid Fire” – firing is down repetitively, “Jump Shot” – as soon as you start firing you also perform a second action such as jumping only once, pg. 3 – “Quick Scope” holding the left trigger performs the a first action such as rapid fire (repetitively firing) and a single second action of quick scope aiming). 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 the trigger operation and first and second actions of Li in view of May such that continuous trigger operation results in repetitive execution of the first action and single execution of the second action as taught by RapidFire because such a modification would allow for greater flexibility and a greater enhancement to a user’s gaming experience (RapidFire – pg. 2 “Introduction”).
Claims 2, 11, and 20: Li discloses wherein the first action button is an attack button, and the first action is attacking (¶ 47, Fig. 4).
Claims 3 and 12: Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire teaches wherein the first action and the second action are executed simultaneously (Mays - ¶ 122, 127).
Claims 4 and 13: Li discloses in response to a trigger operation on the first action button, controlling the virtual object to execute the first action associated with the first action button (see above, ¶ 46-47).
Claims 5 and 14: Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein displaying the connection button comprises: displaying the connection button between the first action button and the second action button. Li at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Additionally, Mays teaches that that the virtual game controls can be ergonomically located on the touch screen (¶ 3); the control’s location can be dynamically adjusted to accommodate individual users hand size, preferred hand location, preferred interaction style (¶ 3); virtual game controls can be relocated based on convenience (¶ 31-32). 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 the connection button of Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire such that it is displayed between the first action button and the second action button since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Such a modification additionally accommodates the user based on preference and/or convenience (see above with respect to adjusting location of virtual game controls in Mays).
Claims 8 and 17: Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting adjusting a viewing angle of the virtual object based on a movement track of the trigger operation for the connection button. Li at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above) and that the operation of the second button (303) includes adjusting a viewing angle of the virtual object based on a movement track of the trigger operation for the second button (¶ 40-41). Additionally, Mays teaches that the connection button includes the ability to adjust a viewing angle of the virtual object based on a movement track of a trigger operation on the connection button (see above, ¶ 107-109, 122). 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 the method and electronic device including connection button means of Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire to include the movement track means of Mays because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of adjusting a viewing angle of the virtual object based on a movement track in which at least Li is intended (see above). Such a modification allow a user to optimize the control interface for different characteristics of a game and/or customized to a user’s preference (Mays - ¶ 5).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2019/0091561) in view of Mays III (US 2015/0182856), herein Mays, in view of PS4 Rapid Fire (https://web.archive.org/web/20201001082754/https://customcontrollerzz.com/ps4-rapid-fire/ ), herein RapidFire, and in further view of Gerhard (US 2018/0311582).
Claims 6 and 15: Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein displaying the connection button comprises: displaying a first connection indicator between the connection button and the first action button and a second connection indicator between the connection button and the second action button. Li at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, Gerhard teaches providing/displaying connection indicators or links (425) between icons and triggers when association between the icons and triggers is made or established (¶ 50, 72-75, 81, 90, 96, 104, 121, Figs. 4-5). 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 the buttons of Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire with the connection indicators or links of Gerhard to provide an indication to the user of an association of the first button to the connection button and/or the second button to the connection button. Such a modification establishes a correspondence or association thereof (see above with respect to Gerhard); thereby, making the overall game experience more user-friendly via the helpful indicators.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2019/0091561) in view of Mays III (US 2015/0182856), herein Mays, in view of PS4 Rapid Fire (https://web.archive.org/web/20201001082754/https://customcontrollerzz.com/ps4-rapid-fire/ ), herein RapidFire, and in further view of I found a new 3 finger claw hud for Call of Duty Mobile! Super easy for beginners in cod mobile! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0595c1nM_sQ ), herein Codm.
Claims 9 and 18: Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting comprising: displaying the first action button, the second action button, and the connection button in a setting interface for the connection button; and receiving an enabling operation for the connection button. Li at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, Codm teaches providing a button(s) settings interface that displays the available buttons for a game and includes an enabling/disabling operation for said buttons (time - the user customizes and touches/presses on the various buttons (pressing/touching action indicated in yellow) to bring up various settings for the corresponding button, wherein buttons have a feature that disable/enables the button (time – 1:03 – 12:23 - in the example a button (button turns red) is disabled by the user checking the hide button, wherein unchecking the hide button would enable the shoot button)). 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 the method of Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire such that the first, second, and/or third buttons of Li in view of Mays in view of RapidFire includes with the button settings interface including the disabling/enabling features of Codm to provide an improved user interface of game controls based on a user’s preference. Such a modification making the overall gaming input experience more user friendly and/or convenient (Codm – illustrates how easy and/or user friendly the customization is).
Response to Arguments
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/21/2021 and 12/31/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed certified copies of the 20211122767.8 and 202111672352.8 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claim objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments/arguments filed 11/5/25.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 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. RapidFire has been incorporated in the rejection to address continuous trigger operation executing a first action repetitively and a second action once.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715