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
This is in response to the amendments filed on 11/10/25. Claims 1, 11, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the current application.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A virtual prop transfer method, performed by a computer device, the method comprising: displaying a battle picture, the battle picture comprising a first virtual object corresponding to a first virtual person; determining that the first virtual object has a prop obtaining request followed by an aiming crosshair of a second virtual object corresponding to a second virtual person pointing to the first virtual object corresponding to the first virtual person, the first virtual object and the second virtual object belonging to a same camp; displaying a prop transfer control in response to the aiming crosshair of the second virtual object pointing to the first virtual object; and in response to a trigger operation on the prop transfer control, controlling the second virtual object to transfer a virtual prop to the first virtual object according to the prop obtaining request.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as random generator, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations such as an interface, processor, and memory components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as a computer device, however, viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Gu et al. (U.S. 2022/0297003).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, Gu discloses a virtual prop transfer method performed by a computer device, (“the terminal obtains the target virtual item in response to the first trigger operation; and displays, in the virtual scene, that the target virtual object is equipped with the target virtual item”, par. 0121), the method comprising displaying a battle picture, the battle picture comprising a first virtual object, (fig. 3), corresponding to a first virtual person, (fig. 7, part 701), determining that the first virtual object has a prop obtaining request followed by an aiming crosshair of a second virtual object corresponding to a second virtual person, (“The virtual object may include a virtual image used for representing a user in the virtual scene. The virtual scene may also include a plurality of virtual objects, and each virtual object has a shape and a volume in the virtual scene, and occupies some space in the virtual scene”, par. 0080), pointing to the first virtual object corresponding to the first virtual person, the first and second virtual object belonging to the same camp, (parts 702 and 703 of fig. 7), displaying a prop transfer control in response to the aiming crosshair of the second virtual object pointing to the first virtual object, (parts 702 and 703 of fig. 7), and in response to a trigger operation on the prop transfer control, controlling the second virtual object to transfer a virtual prop to the first virtual object according to the prop obtaining request, (“When a user performs a first trigger operation on (presses and pinches) the display control 702 and the display control 703, the terminal combines the rifle with the dagger to form a rifle with a dagger at the muzzle”, par. 0147).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 19, Gu discloses wherein the displaying a prop transfer control in response to the aiming crosshair of the second virtual object pointing to the first virtual object comprises: displaying the prop transfer control when an object distance between the first virtual object and the second virtual object meets a distance condition, (parts 702 and 703 of fig. 7).
Regarding claims 3 - 6, 13 – 16, Gu discloses wherein the displaying the prop transfer control when an object distance between the first virtual object and the second virtual object meets a distance condition comprises: obtaining a remaining prop quantity of virtual props owned by the second virtual object; and displaying the prop transfer control when the remaining prop quantity is greater than a first quantity threshold, (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Gu discloses displaying a prop identifier of the virtual prop around the first virtual object, the prop identifier representing that the first virtual object has the prop obtaining request, (part 703 of fig. 7).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 17, Gu discloses stopping displaying the prop identifier around the first virtual object when the first virtual object receives the virtual prop transferred by the second virtual object, (fig. 8).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Gu discloses displaying a transfer quantity identifier of the virtual prop around the first virtual object before the first virtual object receives a virtual prop, the transfer quantity identifier representing a prop quantity of virtual props required by the first virtual object; and updating the transfer quantity identifier with a transfer quantity of virtual props that have been received by the first virtual object, (fig. 7 and fig. 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicants argue that “Gu does not teach or suggest all the features in claim 1 as amended”. More specifically, it is argued that “the Office Actions has failed to identify any teachings in Gu for disclosing “a first virtual object corresponding to a first virtual person” or “a second virtual person pointing to the first virtual object” as required by claim 1 as amended.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the previous office action, the Examiner cited fig. 7 disclosing at least the claim limitation of first and second virtual objects. Fig. 7 further discloses part 701, which is viewed by the Examiner as a first virtual person, (fig. 7, part 701). Gu also discloses that part 701 is a virtual object that may include a virtual image used for representing a user in the virtual scene, (par. 0080), wherein Gu further discloses that the virtual scene may also include a plurality of virtual objects, (par. 0080), wherein the Examiner views Gu’s teaching of a plurality of virtual objects as being equivalent to a plurality of virtual persons.
Applicants further argues that Gu does not disclose “determining that the first virtual object has a prop obtaining request followed by an aiming crosshair of a second virtual object corresponding to a second virtual person pointing to the first virtual object corresponding to the first virtual person" as required by claim 1 as amended”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gu teaches that the display screen of the gaming system is a touch screen, (“determining that the first virtual object has a prop obtaining request followed by an aiming crosshair of a second virtual object corresponding to a second virtual person pointing to the first virtual object corresponding to the first virtual person" as required by claim 1 as amended”, par. 0112), with respect to at least fig. 9, while Gu discloses an aiming crosshair in the center of the display, Gu teaches that a user’s fingers takes the place of the aiming crosshair to meet the claim limitation of obtaining a request followed by an aiming crosshair of a second virtual object corresponding to a second virtual person pointing to the first virtual object corresponding to the first virtual person, (“displaying the target virtual item in the virtual scene in response to a pinch operation on the display controls of the at least two virtual items. On the basis of displaying the display controls of the plurality of virtual items owned by the target virtual object, a combination instruction for at least two virtual items to be combined can be conveniently triggered by pinching display controls of the at least two virtual items, ensuring the convenience of combining the virtual items”, par. 0115). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Gu anticipates the present invention as claimed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715