Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/423,057

HEURISTIC FOR TERMINATION OF UNIT MOVEMENT BASED ON POPULATION DENSITY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 25, 2024
Examiner
HUANG, JAY
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Tencent America LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
Est. Remaining
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allowance Rate
253 granted / 477 resolved
+1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 6m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
514
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.6%
-36.4% vs TC avg
§103
85.0%
+45.0% vs TC avg
§102
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§112
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 477 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Acknowledgements This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 2/10/26. The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number. 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 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. Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected as set forth below. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per claims 1, 12, 20, the limitation “determining a number of units in a destination area of the game map, the destination area having a size proportional to a distance between a current position of the first unit on the game map and the target destination on the game map" fails to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not sufficiently disclose the computer/algorithm required to perform the claimed function of the destination area having a size proportional to a distance between a current position of the first unit on the game map and the target destination on the game map. The Specification lacks details regarding determining the size of the destination area so it is proportional, or has a linear relationship via a constant ratio, with the distance between the first unit and the target destination1. Instead, the Specification merely discloses the square 212b becoming smaller when the unit moves closer towards the target destination ([0076]). See MPEP 2161.01(I): (“When examining computer implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.”). By virtue of dependence, the dependent claims are rejected for the reasons given above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowable over the closet prior art of record. Specifically, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or suggest: determining a number of units in a destination area of the game map, the destination area having a size proportional or corresponding in size to a distance between a current position of the first unit on the game map and the target destination on the game map; determining whether to stop the movement of the first unit towards the target destination before the first unit reaches the target destination based on the destination area and the number of units in the destination area; and stopping the first unit based on a determination to stop the movement of the first unit towards the target destination. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: United States Patent Application Publication No. 20170056773 to Zhu disclose a method and a system of moving a character in an online game. The method includes: receiving, by a first client, a movement instruction for a specified character, where the movement instruction includes a destination grid, acquiring a game map including a marked dynamic blocking grid, where the marked dynamic blocking grid is a dynamic blocking grid on which a game character exists, establishing an optimal path from a current start grid on which the specified character is located to the destination grid specified in the movement instruction without traveling through the marked dynamic blocking grid, generating movement information including the specified character and the optimal path, and sending the movement information to a server; and receiving, by the server, the movement information sent by the first client, and sending the movement information to all clients except the first client by group messaging. 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 JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT. 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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. /JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 1 “Proportional.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proportional. Accessed 8 Apr. 2026.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jan 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 10, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 13, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12632848
VALUE TRANSFER VIA FACIAL RECOGNITION
3y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12632909
AUTOMATED REMOTE PAYMENTS BETWEEN A VEHICLE AND A REFUELING STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12608706
CONDUCTING FUEL DISPENSING TRANSACTIONS
3y 2m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12567072
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USE IN BIOMETRIC-ENABLED NETWORK INTERACTIONS
4y 4m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12555103
PROCESSING A CONTINGENT ACTION TOKEN SECURELY
1y 10m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+20.3%)
5y 6m (~3y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 477 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month