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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 recites A method for controlling a virtual object, performed by at least one processor of an electronic device. The limitation of obtaining a first operation instruction in a process that a virtual object controlled by a client performs an acceleration operation, the first operation instruction instructing the virtual object to perform a first target action, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an electronic device,” and “processor” language, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses a user verbally telling a manual object to move. Similarly, the limitations of: obtaining and adjusting are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a couple additional elements – “an electronic device,” and “processor”. The “an electronic device,” and “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “an electronic device,” and “processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,779,43. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the pending application are encompassed by the claims of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2020/0086214 A1 to Yabuki et al. (hereinafter “Yabuki”) in view of US Publication No. 2011/0275436 A1 to Kidakarn (hereinafter “Kidakarn”).
Concerning claim 1, Yabuki discloses a method for controlling a virtual object, performed by at least one processor of an electronic device (Abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining a first operation instruction in a process that a virtual object controlled by a client performs an acceleration operation, the first operation instruction instructing the virtual object to perform a first target action (paragraphs [0130]-[0133]- first and second instructions are provided to control a virtual object to perform first and second target actions);
obtaining a second operation instruction within a first target time period after the first target action is completed, the second operation instruction instructing the virtual object to perform a second target action (paragraphs [0130]-[0133]- first and second instructions are provided to control a virtual object to perform first and second target actions); and
adjusting a movement state of the virtual object from a first state to a second state within a second target time period after the virtual object starts to perform the second target action (paragraphs [0134]-[0141] – more energy is collected from the vehicle in the acceleration state (i.e., second state) than the normal state),
Yabuki lacks specifically disclosing, however, Kidakarn discloses comprising: increasing a force parameter value of a steering force on the virtual object (paragraphs [0042], [0049], [0058] – steering force is increased on the virtual object based on increasing a force parameter value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of force as disclosed by Kidakarn in the system of Yabuki in order to provide a more realistic driving experience in the game.
Concerning claims 2 and 14, Yabuki discloses wherein the adjusting a movement state of the virtual object from a first state to a second state within a second target time period after the virtual object starts to perform the second target action further comprises: decreasing a friction parameter value of a friction on the virtual object (paragraphs [0134]-[0141] – parameter values are adjusted based on the first and second state of the vehicle).
Concerning claims 3 and 15, Yabuki lacks specifically disclosing, however, Kidakarn discloses wherein increasing the force parameter value of the steering force on the virtual object comprises: obtaining a first force parameter value of the steering force on the virtual object in the first state; and increasing the first force parameter value to a second force parameter value of the steering force on the virtual object in the second state according to a first target proportion (paragraphs [0042], [0049], [0058] – steering force is increased on the virtual object based on increasing a force parameter value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of force as disclosed by Kidakarn in the system of Yabuki in order to provide a more realistic driving experience in the game.
Concerning claims 4 and 16, Yabuki discloses wherein decreasing the friction parameter value of the friction on the virtual object comprises: obtaining a first friction parameter value of the friction on the virtual object in the first state; and decreasing the first friction parameter value to a second friction parameter value of the friction on the virtual object in the second state according to a second target proportion (paragraphs [0134]-[0141] –friction is decreased on the virtual object allowing the virtual object to obtain a drift state).
Concerning claims 5 and 17, Yabuki discloses wherein: the first operation instruction is received when the virtual object is in a bend with a bend angle less than an angle threshold (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0108]-[0113] – operation instruction is received when a player is making a turn with a bend angle less than a threshold).
Concerning claim 7, Yabuki discloses further comprising: adjusting a state of an acceleration control button corresponding to the acceleration operation to an active state when an energy accumulation value of an energy collected based on a movement of the virtual object reaches a trigger threshold (paragraphs [0143]-[0147], [0162] – acceleration is set to active when the acceleration flag is on based on energy accumulations reaching trigger thresholds).
Concerning claim 8, Yabuki discloses wherein: a first energy value collected by the virtual object per unit time in the first state is less than a second energy value collected by the virtual object per unit time in the second state (paragraphs [0143]-[0147], [0162] – first energy value is less that second).
Concerning claim 11, Yabuki discloses wherein after the adjusting a movement state of the virtual object from a first state to a second state, the method further comprises: obtaining, when an execution time of the second target action reaches a second threshold and a speed identified by a movement speed vector of the virtual object reaches a target threshold, an operation state of the virtual object performing the acceleration operation; and displaying prompt information on the client when the operation state indicates that the virtual object is in an accelerated state, the prompt information indicating that the virtual object has completed an action combination, the action combination comprising the first target action and the second target action (paragraphs [0143]-[0147], [0162] – prompts are displayed when player is in acceleration state).
Concerning claim 12, Yabuki discloses wherein the first target action and the second target action are drift actions performed according to a same direction (paragraphs [0130]-[0133] – target actions are drift actions).
Concerning claims 13 and 20, see the rejection of claim 1.
Concerning claim 19, Yabuki discloses wherein a first energy value collected by the virtual object per unit time in the first state is less than a second energy value collected by the virtual object per unit time in the second state, and the at least one processor is further configured to perform: adjusting a state of an acceleration control button corresponding to the acceleration operation to an active state when an energy accumulation value of an energy collected based on a movement of the virtual object reaches a trigger threshold (paragraphs [0134]-[0141] – parameter values are adjusted based on the first and second state of the vehicle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 10, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (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, Xuan Thai can be reached on 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715