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
Examiner acknowledges receipt of preliminary amendment filed 7/7/23. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending, Claim 12 is canceled, Claims 9 and 13-14 are currently amended, and Claims 15-20 are newly added.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A character interaction control method, wherein the method comprises: performing set partitioning on a plurality of first virtual characters in response to an attack trigger event of the plurality of first virtual characters against a second virtual character, to obtain a plurality of character sets, wherein the character set comprises at least two first virtual characters; determining, for each of the plurality of character sets, a first target virtual character in the character set that satisfies a condition for initiating an interactive action in a target interaction cycle; and controlling the determined first target virtual character to attack the second virtual character.” (Claim 1); “A computer device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a bus, the memory storing machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, the processor communicating with the memory through the bus when the computer device runs, wherein the machine-readable instructions upon execution by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: performing set partitioning on a plurality of first virtual characters in response to an attack trigger event of the plurality of first virtual characters against a second virtual character, to obtain a plurality of character sets, wherein the character set comprises at least two first virtual characters; determining, for each of the plurality of character sets, a first target virtual character in the character set that satisfies a condition for initiating an interactive action in a target interaction cycle; and controlling the determined first target virtual character to attack the second virtual character.” (Claim 13); and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, wherein the computer program upon execution is run by a processor causes the processor to perform operations comprising: performing set partitioning on a plurality of first virtual characters in response to an attack trigger event of the plurality of first virtual characters against a second virtual character, to obtain a plurality of character sets, wherein the character set comprises at least two first virtual characters; determining, for each of the plurality of character sets, a first target virtual character in the character set that satisfies a condition for initiating an interactive action in a target interaction cycle; and controlling the determined first target virtual character to attack the second virtual character.”(Claim 14). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for a game)). Such limitations amounts to game rules or instructions for performing set partitioning on a plurality of first virtual characters in response to an attack trigger event of the plurality of first virtual characters against a second virtual character, to obtain a plurality of character sets, wherein the character set comprises at least two first virtual characters; determining, for each of the plurality of character sets, a first target virtual character in the character set that satisfies a condition for initiating an interactive action in a target interaction cycle; and controlling the determined first target virtual character to attack the second virtual character.
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 (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
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 “computer device”, “processor”, “memory”, “bus” and/or “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the 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 (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). 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. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method, device, and/or medium and/or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the method, device, and/or medium. 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.
Furthermore, displaying and controller virtual characters to perform actions are conventional in the art (Tarumi (US 2014/0235334 A1) - ¶ 2-3).
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-11 and 15-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1- 3, 5, 13-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi (JP 2003144749 A)(please refer to JP 2003144749 A English Translation found at https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=JP&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2003144749&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ja&TRGLANG=en and attached herein).
Claims 1 and 13-14: Higuchi discloses a computer device, comprising a processor, a memory (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and a bus, the memory storing a computer program and/or machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, the processor communicating with the memory through the bus when the computer device runs, wherein the computer program and/or machine-readable instructions upon execution by the processor cause the processor (¶ 16, 19-20, 23-29) to perform operations or method comprising: performing set partitioning on a plurality of first virtual characters in response to an attack trigger event (a player character randomly encountering an enemy character) of the plurality of first virtual characters against a second virtual character (enemy character (47, 48)), to obtain a plurality of character sets, wherein the character set comprises at least two first virtual characters (Figs. 3-6, ¶ 10, 12, 15, 17, 30-34, here the plurality of first virtual characters (player characters 41-45) are divided into at least two groups ((41, 43, 45) and (42, 45)); determining, for each of the plurality of character sets, a first target virtual character in the character set that satisfies a condition for initiating an interactive action in a target interaction cycle; and controlling the determined first target virtual character to attack the second virtual character (¶ 31-34, each character whether it is a first target character or a second virtual character has a turn to attack, ¶ 40-43).
Claims 2 and 15: Higuchi teaches wherein the performing set partitioning on a plurality of first virtual characters to obtain a plurality of character sets comprises: determining attribute information of each first virtual character among the plurality of first virtual characters; and performing set partitioning on the plurality of first virtual characters according to the attribute information of each first virtual character to obtain the plurality of character sets, wherein the attribute information comprises at least one of a character type (knows if the characters are player characters and/or enemy characters to determine division), an attack frequency, an attack distance type, an attack effect (HP or level or strength), and a movement speed (see above, ¶ 10, 35, 39).
Claims 3 and 16: Higuchi teaches wherein the determining, for each of the plurality of character sets, a first target virtual character in the character set that satisfies a condition for initiating an interactive action in a target interaction cycle comprises: determining, for each of the plurality of character sets, a comprehensive weight (speed) that each first virtual character in the character set can take action in the target interaction cycle; and determining, according to the comprehensive weight (speed) of each first virtual character, the first target virtual character in the character set that satisfies the condition for initiating an interactive action in the target interaction cycle (see above, ¶ 10, 34-35, 39).
Claims 5 and 18: Higuchi teaches wherein the determining a comprehensive weight that each first virtual character in the character set can take action in the target interaction cycle comprises: when the target interaction cycle is a first interaction cycle, configuring an initial weight for each first virtual character according to the attribute information of each first virtual character in the character set; and using the initial weight of each first virtual character as the comprehensive weight of each first virtual character in the target interaction cycle, wherein the attribute information comprises at least one of a character type, an attack frequency, an attack distance type, an attack effect, and a movement speed (see above, ¶ 10, 34-35, 39, the initial weight is based on the attribute speed of each first virtual character which is equivalent to movement speed since the speed of Higuchi pertains to attack speed).
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi (JP 2003144749 A) in view of Machida (US 2004/0259634 A1).
Claim 9: Higuchi teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the controlling the determined first target virtual character to attack the second virtual character comprises: configuring a combat identifier for each determined first target virtual character; and controlling the first target virtual character configured with the participation identifier to attack the second virtual character. Higuchi at least teaches a determining an attack order based on timing or character’s attributes of speed or random number (¶ 10) for each determined target virtual character to attack the second virtual character, such that the respective controlled first target character attacks the second virtual character in terms of the attack order (¶ 8, 10, 15, 17, 33, 35, 39, 43). Furthermore, an analogous art of Machida teaches a similarly structured computer device and/or method (¶ 101-112, 167) wherein the controlling the determined first target virtual character to attack the second virtual character comprises: configuring a combat identifier (turn interval time) for each determined first target virtual character; and controlling the first target virtual character configured with the participation identifier to attack the second virtual character (¶ 143, 165-180, emphasis on ¶ 174-180). 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 computer device and/or method of Higuchi with the combat identifier means of Machida because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of determined an attack order of the virtual characters in which at least Higuchi is attended (see above). Such a modification improves upon the pleasure of strategy and interest in the game (Machida - ¶ 8).
Claim 10: Machida teaches wherein after controlling the determined first target virtual character to attack the second virtual character, the method further comprises: when it is determined that any first target virtual character configured with a combat identifier satisfies a combat identifier withdrawal condition, withdrawing the combat identifier of the first target virtual character that satisfies the combat identifier withdrawal condition (¶ 176-180, for example when a first target virtual character having a combat identifier (AA1) executes an attack on the second virtual character that combat identifier is withdrawn and/or changed to AA2, wherein it is now the next target virtual character turn of attack indicated by the corresponding combat identifier AB1).
Claim 11: Machida teaches wherein the first target virtual character configured with the combat identifier satisfies the combat identifier withdrawal condition is determined in the following manner: for each first target virtual character configured with a combat identifier, when the first target virtual character has died, determining that the dead first target virtual character satisfies the combat identifier withdrawal condition; for each first target virtual character configured with a combat identifier, when the first target virtual character is struck to fly or fall, determining that the first target virtual character struck to fly or fall satisfies the combat identifier withdrawal condition; or for each first target virtual character configured with a combat identifier, determining at the end of an attack task of the first target virtual character that the first target virtual character who has completed the attack task satisfies the combat identifier withdrawal condition (¶ 176-180, for example each first target virtual character having a combat identifier (for example - AA1) executes an attack on the second virtual character or at the end of an attack task the corresponding combat identifier is withdrawn and/or changed to AA2, wherein it is now the next target virtual character turn of attack indicated by the corresponding combat identifier AB1 (such process repeated for each first target virtual character identifier)).
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