DETAILED ACTION
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 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 14, and 17 recite “in response to a triggering operation on a target skill…of the at least one first skill controlling the first…character to release a target skill corresponding to the target skill button and determining a first skill trace corresponding to the target skill; and in response to positions of the first skill trace and a second skill trace in a to-be-triggered state in the…scene satisfying a preset position condition, triggering a preset skill effect based on the first skill trace and the second skill trace; wherein the second skill trace is determined at historical time by triggering one of the at least one first skill.” And “in response to a triggering operation on the second skill…, generating a target area in the…scene based on a current position of the first virtual character, and generating at least one third…character associated with the first…character in the target area; and in response to the first…character moving within the target area, controlling the third…character to move symmetrically with respect to the center point of the target area within the target area based on a manner in which the first…character moves within the target area.
This represents a mental process which represents a series of game rules for governing the performance of character skills in a game. This could represent the use of skills in a tabletop roleplaying or wargame such as Dungeons and Dragons which is tracked mentally by the players using no more than the aid of pen and paper to track character skills and locations and follow defined game rules. Where the claimed invention covers the functionality of the abstract player skills within the abstract environment of the game. For example the game could use the aid of a grid based battlefield combat area drawn on paper and when the first character is moved one square to the left the generated character could be move one square to the right relative to the arbitrarily defined center point of the area. In the examiner’s opinion this would still be a mental process governing the abstract rules of the game character’s skills and abilities while also providing for moving the generated character “symmetrically” with respect to the first. Characters could then also choose to release and target skill based on this paper grid.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because recitation of recitation of a computer apparatus with a processor and memory, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a display interface of terminal equipment are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further recitation that elements such as the character and scene are “virtual” is simply generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, in this case the field of computer implemented games, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Finally general recitation of skill buttons in a display interface amounts insignificant extra-solution activity as broadly claimed, as the button is simply a generic computer element to gather player input as claimed. As such, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19 recite additional abstract details of the skill use in the mental process of the game rules. Further claims 6, 8, 13, 16, and 19 further recite a skill button which is insignificant extra solution activity as described above. Finally Claim 6 recites information indication control which displays a residual amount of virtual resource which is insignificant extra solution display activity. As such these limitations fail integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because recitation of recitation of recitation of a computer apparatus with a processor and memory, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a display interface of terminal equipment are simply recitation of well-understood, routine and conventional computer elements. Further, Silverglate et al., US 2014/0287395 (Par. 44) and Maggio, US 2019/0272710 teach where it is well-understood and conventional to include buttons in a graphical user interface in order to provide game inputs. As such, even when considered as a whole the claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19 recite additional abstract details of the skill use in the mental process of the game rules. Further claims 6, 8, 13, 16, and 19 further recite a skill button which is insignificant extra solution activity as described above. Finally Claim 6 recites information indication control which displays a residual amount of virtual resource, such a display is well-understood, routine and conventional in the game arts. See Wikipedia.org webpage “Magic (game technology)” which discusses the use of magic or mana as a resource to control the use of abilities as used generally in the field of video games and which teaches “Much like health, magic might be displayed as a numeric value, such as ‘50/100.’” And shows a picture of a “mana bar” which is “used to keep track of a character’s magic points (MP) in a video game.”. As such even when considered as a whole, the claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with regard to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on Page 10, quote:
“Applicant submits that the claim does not recite a mental process because it is not practically possible to control a plurality of virtual characters to move symmetrically with respect to the center point of the target area in the human mind. The above features of claim 1 require action by a processor.”
Examiner disagrees. For example, if the movement of the game characters were constrained to fit on a grid, as is common in games, it would be simple for a human mind to judge what “symmetrical” movements about a point would be. For example, the first character moves one square left, so the other character moves one square right. The first character moves one square down so the other character moves one square up. Such judgements would be straightforward and not at all require the use of a computer. Even if a grid were not used humans have enough spatial reasoning that, in the examiner’s opinion, player could move two characters about a point such that they could be said to move symmetrically by judging the relative distances by eye or with simple paper measuring tools. Examiner appreciates that there is probably a certain level of precision and real-time speed in displaying symmetrical movement that would not necessarily constitute a mental process. However, the claim simply recites that the characters move “symmetrically” and a brief review of applicant’s specification does not appear to provide explicit support for more strictly defining “symmetrically.”
Further, with regard to arguments more generally that the claims are directed to controlling movements of virtual character in a computer game, these arguments are not persuasive. With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, as described above, recitation of a “virtual” scene or “virtual” characters is little more than tying the abstract idea to the field of computer games. To the degree that anything in the claims can be said to be an additional element, it is simply a recitation of a display interface of a virtual scene on a terminal computer that has a first and second skill button. This is simply a description using a computer to implement the abstract idea. To the degree that the display interface and buttons describe an additional element they are simply insignificant extra-solution display activity. And as such fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues that the specific symmetrical movement represents an additional element which is an improvement to technology, but as described above, examiner disagrees. This character movement is simply part of the abstract mental process claimed, and thus does not integrate the claim into a practical application. In particular, examiner notes that the claims do not at all describe how the display interface technological allows the player to move the character in the supposedly improved manner. There is no recitation of player control aside from simply “a triggering operation on the second skill button” to which everything else is responsive. Rather, the movement of the characters occurs simply by “generating” the desired output by the terminal. In the examiner’s opinion this is not describing an improved manner of computer control but merely describing a desired output functionality created by using a computer as a tool.
Similar reasoning applies to Step 2B. The symmetrical movement represents recitation of abstract ideas, and the remaining limitations of a display interface on a terminal with first and second buttons are simply recitation of well-known, routine, and conventional computer activity exceedingly common in the art of computer games, see above. As such, since the symmetrical character movement is part of the abstract idea, the remaining claims fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, in the examiner’s opinion maintaining rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the amended claims is proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/CARL V LARSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3715