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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 5/15/26. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 18 have been amended, and claims 7 and 16 were previously cancelled. Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 15, and 17 – 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 – 6, 8 – 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 6 and 10, and 8 -10 are directed towards a method (process) and claims 11 – 15 and 17 - 20 are directed towards a device and medium, (machine), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with 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 representing a first virtual person and a prop identifier associated with the first virtual person, the prop identifier indicating that the first virtual object has initiated a prop obtaining request requesting a first virtual prop; receiving a first user input associated with a second virtual object representing a second virtual person to aim an aiming crosshair of the second virtual object to point to the first virtual object representing the first virtual person, the second virtual object being equipped with the first virtual prop; in response to determining that the aiming crosshair of the second virtual object is pointing to the first virtual object representing the first virtual person, displaying, over the battle picture, a prop transfer control associated with the second virtual object; receiving a second user input including a trigger operation on the prop transfer control associated with the second virtual object; and in response to receiving the trigger operation on the prop transfer control, transferring the virtual prop from the second virtual object representing the second virtual person to the first virtual object representing the first virtual person.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 11 and 18. Dependent claims 2 – 6, 8 - 10, 12 – 15, and 17, 19, and 20 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for playing a game)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for playing a game which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)). For example, the claims are directed towards receiving user input to control a game character by obtaining resources in order to advance through the game. This is viewed as rules that are directed towards how to play a game and the controlling of game characters.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic computer device and memory along with instructions that display and allow a player to participate in playing of a game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language recites a computer device and virtual characters controlled by a player of the game, however, viewed as a whole, this additional element is 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 as the claims do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or add an “inventive concept” beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the video games Just Cause 4, hereinafter Cause, and Kane & Lynch, hereinafter Kane.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, Cause discloses a virtual prop transfer method, device, and medium, wherein a virtual prop is defined as a virtual resource such as a weapon, medical kit, etc., (see par. 0045 and fig. 10, part 1002 of specification), performed by a computer displaying a battle picture, the battle picture comprising a first virtual object representing a first virtual person, (0:17 of Cause), shown in fig. 1 below.
Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cause further discloses a prop identifier associated with the first virtual with the first virtual person, the prop identifier indicating that the first virtual object has initiated a prop obtaining request requesting a first virtual prop, (0:28 – 0:32 of Cause), shown in fig. 2 below. Wherein the Examiner views the reticle highlighting the assault rifle as being equivalent to a prop identifier being requested.
Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
817
1449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cause further discloses receiving first user input associated with a second virtual object, (assault rifle highlighted by reticle in the figure shown above), representing a second virtual person (Haragan pictured to the left in the figure shown above) to aim an aiming crosshair of the second virtual object to point to the first virtual object representing the first virtual person, the second virtual object being equipped with the first virtual prop, (0:32 – 0:35 of Cause, showing second virtual object being delivered to first virtual object), shown in fig. 3 below.
Fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
819
1447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cause further discloses determining that the aiming crosshair of the second virtual object is pointing to the first virtual object representing the first virtual, (fig. 3 above and 0:32 – 0:35), wherein the Examiner views the delivery of the second virtual object in the green container landing near the first virtual person shown in fig. 3, as being equivalent to determining an aiming crosshair of the second virtual object pointing to the first virtual object representing the first virtual person. Cause further discloses receiving a second user input including a trigger operation on the prop transfer control associated with the second virtual object, (reticle highlighting assault rifle in fig. 2 above), and in response to receiving the trigger operation on the prop transfer control, transferring the virtual prop from the second virtual object representing the second virtual person to be first virtual object representing the first virtual person, (0:32 – 0:35 of Cause, showing second virtual object being delivered to first virtual object), shown in fig. 3 above.
Cause, as shown in fig. 2 above, displays the prop transfer control in a separate display screen, but is silent on displaying the prop transfer control over the battle picture. In a related art, Kane discloses a virtual prop transfer method, wherein the prop transfer control is displayed over the battle picture, (Figure in pg. 13 of Kane). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine displayed virtual prop transfer method of Kane into the art disclosed by Cause in order to simply the operation steps of transferring virtual props and improving efficiency, wherein the efficiency is improved by allowing a player to remain in the battle screen while obtaining resources, instead of opening a second screen to obtain said resources, which simplifies the process of obtaining the said resources.
Regarding claim 8, Cause 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, (0:32 – 0:35 and fig. 3 above).
Regarding claims 2 – 6, 10, 12 – 15, 17, 19, and 20, said claims are not rejected over prior, however, as stated above, said claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments/statements with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 6, 8 – 15, and 17 – 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claims 1, 11, and 18, Applicants request “that the Examiner reconsider the subject matter patentability of the pending the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the amended independent claims”. The independent claims, as amended, are directed towards receiving inputs from a player in order to progress through the game. The claims are clearly directed towards conducting or managing a game which has been identified by the courts as abstract ideas. While the Examiner acknowledges the recent claim amendments, the current claim language still does not reflect an improvement to gaming technology nor does it provide a technical solution to a problem. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that claims 1 – 6, 8 – 15, and 17 – 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights