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 .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 06/11/2026, claims 5 and 21 were cancelled and 22-24 were newly added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 7-15, 17-19, and 22-24 remain pending, of which, 1, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 18 were amended.
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 1-3, 7-15, 17-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 17 and 18, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. An in-game virtual object control method, comprising:
providing, by a first terminal, a virtual object residence area on a graphical user interface of the first terminal, wherein a plurality of virtual objects to be selected are displayed in the virtual object residence area according to a trigger instruction, and the plurality of virtual objects to be selected are configured to leave the virtual object residence area after a preset duration (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes);
in response to a selection instruction for the plurality of virtual objects to be selected, selecting a target number of target virtual objects from the plurality of virtual objects to be selected, and adding the target number of target virtual objects into a virtual city (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
generating a demand task associated with at least one virtual object to be selected that is unselected, and displaying, on the graphical user interface, task information corresponding to the demand task (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes); and
in response to completing the demand task, increasing the preset duration for one of the at least one virtual object to be selected to leave the virtual object residence area corresponding to the demand task (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
wherein displaying, on the graphical user interface, the task information corresponding to the demand task comprises:
displaying a preset bubble in the graphical user interface, wherein the preset bubble is configured to indicate a current demand task to be completed (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes); and
displaying, in response to a confirmation operation for the preset bubble, demand information and residence duration information corresponding to the current demand task to be completed, on the graphical user interface, wherein the demand information comprises at least one of demanded article or demanded number, and the residence duration information comprises a remaining duration for the virtual objects to leave the virtual object residence area (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 17 and 18) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a memory, a terminal device or a server, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game (e.g., selecting virtual objects to add to a city, completing tasks to extend timers, and responding to a confirmation operation for a bubble to view demand information), which in light of applicant' s specification, is broadly and reasonably interpreted as rules governing player interactions and game mechanics while playing a game (See Specification, ¶120)). These, sets of rules are interpreted as at least Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity inasmuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following a set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims; and/or
B. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., displaying a preset bubble indicating a task to be completed and displaying demand information and residence duration information on a graphical user interface in response to a confirmation operations). Presenting information to a user for visual observation, evaluation, or mental processing falls within the grouping of Mental Processes. Here, these mental processes are performed directly in furtherance of following game rules and instructions (i.e., Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). The underlying features merely represent the visual presentation of game state variables and user status data on a generic display device to guide user interaction within the game. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 7-15, 19, and 22-24:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity or Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-3, 7-15, 17-19, and 22-24 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The visual displays on the graphical user interface (e.g., residence area, demand tasks, preset bubbles, demand information, residence duration information) merely convey game status or rules to the player. They do not improve the operational efficiency, speed, or technical functionality of the graphical user interface or the terminal device itself. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor, a memory, a terminal device or a server”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor and memory are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2011/0216060, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor and memory to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶100). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considering the claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, the claims merely recite the execution of generic software logic (i.e., displaying UI elements, display preset bubbles, selecting objects, calculating timers, and updating visual indicators) on conventional hardware. Arranging routine game logic steps in a standard operational manner does not provide an inventive concept nor does it amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an enumerated abstract idea, specifically that the claims do not recite a Fundamental Economic Practice (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. First, the examiner’s rejection under Step 2A, Prong 1 does not rely on classifying the claims under Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices grouping. Rather the claimed features are categorized under the Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People grouping (which encompasses following rules or instructions) and Mental Processes (including at least evaluating and observing displayed information). According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, an abstract idea need only fall into at least one of the enumerated groupings to satisfy Step 2A, Prong 1 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). Controlling virtual objects, completing demand tasks, and updating timers based on task completion represent defined game mechanics. Following a set of rules or instructions in an electronic game constitutes a method of organizing huma activity regardless of whether financial or commercial transactions are involved (See, e.g., In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 218 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the fact that the claims relate to virtual object management within a video game rather than commercial or financial relationships does not remove the claim limitations from the enumerated abstract idea groupings identified.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an enumerated abstract idea, specifically that the claims do not recite a Method of Organizing Human Activity because, while games involve human interaction, “the claim is not directed to organizing interpersonal relationships or human activities in a generic sense (e.g., advertising, marketing, or scheduling)” (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, the grouping Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity is not limited to interpersonal relationships, advertising, marketing, or scheduling (See MPEP 2106(a)). Rather, MPEP 2106.04(a)(3) explicitly defines Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People to include following rules or instructions. The MPEP further explicitly clarifies that this sub-grouping “encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people”. The instant claims define the set of rules that a user must follow while playing a game. Game mechanics and set game rules govern user interaction and behavior within the software application, which falls squarely within the scope of following rules or instructions (See, e.g., In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 218 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the claim limitations do not need to manage interpersonal relationships or commercial behaviors like advertising to constitute a method of organizing human activity under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an enumerated abstract idea, specifically that the claims do not recite a Mathematical Concept or Mental Process because, the claims require physical hardware steps…which cannot be practically performed in the human mind (See Remarks, pgs. 10-11). First, the limitation of displaying information (e.g., a preset bubble, demand information, or residence duration) on a physical graphical user interface does not prevent a claim from being directed to a Mental Process under Step 2A, Prong 1. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, mental processes include concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)). Presenting status information or task indicators on a generic display device for a user to visually observer, evaluate, and mentally process falls squarely within this grouping. Furthermore, the courts have repeatedly held that appending generic physical display hardware or software rending steps to an otherwise mental processes does not strip the limitation of its abstract nature. Merely executing an abstract idea or observation step on a generic display device does not render the underlying concept non-abstract (See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Finally, as noted in the rejection, the mental processo f observing display data on the screen performed directly in furtherance of following game rules and instructions (i.e., Certain methods of Organizing Human Activity). The physical requirement of a GIU or terminal display acts merely as a generic tool to convey these abstract game parameters to the player. Therefore, inclusion of generic interface rendering steps on a generic display device does not remove the underlying information display and observation features from the Mental Processes grouping.
Applicant argues that claim 1, as a whole, is not similar to a court-identified abstract idea because the method “tightly couples the logical rules of virtual object retention with specific GUI rendering behaviors” and it provides “a specific technical solution for human-computer interaction (HCI) within a game terminal” (See Remarks, pg. 11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Coupling game rules (i.e., extending residence timer upon task completion) with standard graphical display actions (e.g., rendering a bubble and displaying task detains upon a confirmation input) does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible technical solution under Step 2A, Prong 1. The Federal Circuit has made clear that using graphical interface elements to display game state information or automate game rules is not a technical improvement to human-computer interaction or display technology, but rather, it remains an abstract idea applied on a generic computer. Furthermore, in the context of electronic gaming and user interfaces court precedent hold that tailoring what game rules or content are presented on a GUI does not constitute a technical improvement to how the GUI or terminal functions (See Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Here the interaction between the player and terminal is governed purely by the logical rules of the game mechanic itself, rendered via routine GUI behavior. Therefore, coupling game rules to generic GUI display behaviors does not take the claims, as a whole, outside the scope of court-identified abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that, under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because the claim “improves the human-computer interaction of the game terminal” (See Remarks, pg. 11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application if the claim improves the operational functioning of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a)). However, an improvement in user interaction must stem from a technical solution to a technical problem in display or computer hardware functionality, rather than an improvement in player experience, game design, or information presentation. The instant claims recite generic human-computer interaction steps (e.g., presenting a visual indicator (i.e., preset bubble), receiving a standard user input (i.e., confirmation operations), rendering status detail, and adjusting an internal variable (i.e., residence timer). These steps utilize the graphical user interface as a generic tool to execute standard input/output routines. The do not includes the processing speed, reduce memory overhead, or improve the graphical rendering architecture of the terminal itself. As established by the Federal Circuit, GUI claims are patent-eligible when directed to a specific, technical user interface feature that solves a technical problem in display operations across generic applications (See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In contrast, where a claim merely specifies what data to present to a user during a game or task without modifying the underlying operation of the display system, it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, displaying game state parameters and accepting routine confirmation inputs on a generic GUI does not improve human-computer interaction in a technological sense, and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Applicant argues that requiring a preset bubble to indicate a task, followed by displaying demand and duration information in response to confirmation operation, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it “solves the technical problem of efficiently notifying the player of virtual object’s impending departure without obstructing the main game view, efficiently managing limited screen space” (See Remarks, pg. 11, pg. 12). The examiner must restfully disagree. Under MPEP 2106.05(a), to establish an improvement to computer functionality under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B, the specification must set forth a technical explanation of the claimed invention achieves the alleged technical improvement. Here, the specification describes game logic and UI display elements using conventional computer hardware, however, it fails to identify or solve any technical problem in computer hardware, computer processing, memory management, or display hardware rendering. Conveying dynamic game states on a GUI relates to information layout and game design, not a technological improvement to the operation of the computer or display device.
Applicant argues that the additional elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Specifically, applicant argues that the specific combination of steps (e.g., displaying a preset bubble as an indicator, requiring a confirmation operation to drill down into the specific demand and duration information, and linking the completion of that specific demand task to the extension of the virtual object's preset duration) is a highly specific, non-conventional GUI control scheme not inherently featured in conventional computing systems (See Remarks, pg. 12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under Step 2B, an element or combination does not amount to “significantly more” if it consists of routine, conventional functions executed on generic hardware (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Here the hardware elements (i.e., terminal, GUI, processor, etc.) are generic. The software actions (e.g., displaying an indicator, detecting user selection, rendering data, updating a timer) represent standard, well-understood, routine, and conventional computer interaction steps. Arranging routine information collection and display steps in a logical sequence does not transform conventional computer operations into an inventive concept. Therefore, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, and fail to provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights