DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 5 August 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 21-37 have been amended.
The 112a rejection, the double patenting rejections, and all art rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 21-37 are pending. Claims 21, 31, and 37 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the title has been entered. However, the title of the specification remains objected because the word “aling” is misspelled (see page 2 of Applicant’s response). The Examiner believes the spelling of “aling” should be “along”. Therfore, the Examiner states the title of the specification should read as “SYSTEM, METHOD AND GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR CHANGING A STATE OF A GRAPHICAL OBJECT ALONG A SWIPING PATH IN A BUILDING GAME” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-37 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the element “user-selectable tool” in the limitation “detect a selection of a user-selectable tool from the menu”. However, the element “one of the one or more user-selectable tools” was already introduced in the previous “generate” limitation of claim 1 where it states a menu comprising one or more user selectable tools. It is unclear if the “user-selectable tool” element in the generate limitation depends on the element “one of the one or more user-selectable tools” of the menu in the generate limitation or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this limitation of claim 1 as “detect a selection of a user-selectable tool of the one or more user-selectable tools from the menu.”
Claims 31 and 37 recite similar issues as in Claim 21 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 30-31, and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Android Addicts (herein as “Addicts”)(“The Sims FreePlay Android Review”, online as of March 17, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGNDVRQQXsw + 22 pages of screenshots, text, and transcript from the Google Youtube video in document titled “The Sims FreePlay Android Review [HD]") in further view of Hanna et al(US 20070110886, 2007). Schrock, US20120081305, pub. 4/5/2012, is cited as evidence regarding dragging is a form of swiping.
As per independent claim 21, based on the 112b rejection, Addicts discloses:
an electronic device comprising: a display screen; and a computing hardware configured to execute machine readable instructions stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein execution of the machine readable instructions by the computing hardware causes the computing hardware to: render a graphical user interface on the display screen, the graphical user interface being configured to facilitate user interaction with a building game implemented on the electronic device, (pg 1-22: Discloses a software application game called Sims Freeplay playable on Android devices. Sims Freeplay comprises a UI that involves user interaction that includes a building/construction feature. ~7:29-30 shows the GUI of the construction/building of a park in mid progress. (pg 4, 11 discloses GUI can include houses that can take 12 hours to build) ~7:44-:45 shows the ability to build a house on a plot of land. (see also pg 9) Furthermore, Addicts indicates that the app is for Android. (pg2, 3) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that apps designed for Android indicated that the app is designed for devices that run the Android operating systems. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized devices running the Android operating system include a display screen and computer hardware that includes a processer, memory and a storage medium.)
7:29-30: discloses selecting an area being constructed (i.e. the park)
PNG
media_image1.png
890
1426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
890
1426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
7:44-7:45: Discloses the ability to select a plot of land which loads a menu of houses to construct
PNG
media_image3.png
890
1426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
890
1426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
present one or more selectable graphical objects of the building game on the graphical user interface, (~7:29 shows the GUI of the building/construction of a park (game object) in mid progress)
detect a selection of one of the one or more of selectable graphical objects; (~7:29-30 shows the park being selected)
generate a menu comprising one or more user-selectable tools associated with the selected graphical object, the one or more user-selectable tools in the menu being based on a current state of the selected graphical object, each of the one or more user-selectable tools corresponding to a respective effect available for application to the of the selected graphical object;(~7:30 shows a menu popping up giving the options that include using game currency to speed up the building. The menu shows a progress bar of the amount completed and the time remaining towards completion. The displayed menu (and options/tools) is based on the current state of the park being built; ~7:44-:45 shows the ability to build a house on a plot of land. (see also pg 9).This menu and options/tools is based on the current state of an empty plot of land (game object )
detect a selection of a tool from the menu; apply an effect corresponding to the selected user-selectable tool to the one or more portions… the effect configured to change, in the one or more portions, the selected graphical object from the current state to a changed state as rendered on the display screen (~7:30, page 4, 11; selecting the yellow option would automatically complete the construction/building of the park. Page 12 states “Using up a Life Point will instantly complete an action/task and save you having to wait around.” One of a skilled artisan would have realized that using a life point will result in the construction/building being finished, a form of applying an effect that changes in the one or more portions, the selected graphical object from the current state to a changed state ; ~7:39 is a result of the user hitting the green option that closes the menu
~7:39:
PNG
media_image5.png
895
1432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
However, the cited art fails to specifically discloses detect a swiping movement through one or more portions of the selected graphical object; and during the swiping movement, apply an effect corresponding to the selected user-selectable tool to the one or more portions traversed by the swiping movement, the effect configured to change, in the one or more portions, the selected graphical object from the current state to a changed state as rendered on the display screen
However, Hanna et al discloses a menu comprising one or more user-selectable tools (220-240) wherein a user can select one of the tools from the menu (e.g. 230). In response a selection of say tool 230, the user can drag his finger across the screen to provide the selected color at each of the points along the finger's path. Doing so, when the user drags their finger across/through a point (210), the points are viewed as being selected and the color state of those points are changed to the selected color of the user’s choosing as explained in 0026. 0027 discloses a similar function in which tool 250 allows a user to drag their finger from one point, through a number of points and releasing their finger from an end point. Doing this results in tool 250 will automatically provide a substantially straight line of the selected color at all points 210 between the starting and ending point of the user's finger. Thus, when the user drags their finger across/through the points (210) between the starting and end points, the inbetween points that were passed through are viewed as being selected and the color state of those points are changed to the selected color of the user’s choosing as explained in 0026 ) Furthermore, the Examiner provides, Schrock, entered as extrinsic evidence, that a dragging movement is a form of a swipe movement (0167, 0169) Thus, when a user is dragging their finger across/through the points on the screen, the user is performing a swiping movement.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Hanna et al since it would have provided the benefit of enable a customer to design a pattern of (digital) confectionary pieces (graphical objects) and then automatically construct the final product quickly and easily, to achieve the customer's own design. (0005)
As per dependent claim 30, Claim 30 recited similar limitations as in Claim 21 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Addicts discloses the electronic device comprises a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet, or a smart phone. (Addicts indicates that the app is for Android. (pg 2,3). One of a skilled artisan would have realized that apps designed for Android indicated that the app is designed for devices, such as smart phones or tablets, that run the Android operating systems)
As per independent claims 31 and 37, Claims 31 and 37 recited similar limitations as in Claim 21 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Addicts discloses a medium (Addicts indicates that the app is for Android. (pg 2,3) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that apps designed for Android indicated that the app is designed for devices that run the Android operating systems. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized devices running the Android operating system include a display screen and computer hardware that includes a processer, memory and a storage medium.)
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of Hanna et al in further view of Lee et al (US20130125058, filed 11/11/2011)
As per dependent claim 22, the cited art fails to specifically wherein detecting the swiping movement comprises detecting a track of a cursor or pointer object over the graphical user interface. However, Lee et al discloses detecting the swiping movement comprises detecting a track of a cursor or pointer object over the graphical user interface (0079: tracks cursor as it sweeps across (over) the GUI)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Lee et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of maintaining accurate interaction between the user's physical movement and the digital environment and ensuring that the cursor remains responsive, accurate, and visible.
As per dependent claim 32, Claim 32 recites similar limitations as in Claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 23, 27, and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of Hanna et al in further view of Kim (US20110304561, 12/15/2011)
As per dependent claim 23, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the computing hardware is configured to detect a termination of the swiping movement, terminate application of the effect, and remove a visual indicator of the selected user-selectable tool from the graphical user interface. However, Kim discloses the computing hardware is configured to detect a termination of the swiping movement, terminate application of the effect, and remove a visual indicator of the selected user-selectable tool from the graphical user interface (FIG 4; 0100-0104: when the touch drag input is removed (form of swiping ending/terminating), the displayed content returns to its original display state (termination of effect) and the display of the second region (tool) is removed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Lee et al since it would have provided the benefit of allowing a user to easily display related information, data, or associated content by manipulation of the display. (0007)
As per dependent claim 27, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the computing hardware is further configured to disable application of the effect in response to detecting a termination of the swiping movement. However, based on the rejection of Claim 23 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Kim discloses the computing hardware is configured to disable application of the effect in response to detecting a termination of the swiping movement (FIG 4; 0100-0104: when the touch drag input is removed (form of swiping ending), the displayed content returns to its original display state (disable application of effect) and the display of the second region (tool) is removed)
As per dependent claim 33, the cited art fails to disclose in response to detecting termination of the swiping movement, terminating application of the effect and removing a visual indicator of the selected user-selectable tool from the graphical user interface. However, based on the rejection of Claim 23 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Kim discloses in response to detecting termination of the swiping movement, terminating application of the effect and removing a visual indicator of the selected user-selectable tool from the graphical user interface. (FIG 4; 0100-0104: when the touch drag input is removed (form of swiping ending/terminating), the displayed content returns to its original display state (termination of effect) and the display of the second region (tool) is removed)
Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of Hanna et al in further view of Ying et al (US20130111395, filed 10/28/2011)
As per dependent claim 24, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the computing hardware is further configured to detect a speed of the swiping movement through the one or more portions of the selected graphical object; and apply the effect corresponding to the selected user-selectable tool at a rate that is dependent at least partially on the detected speed of the swiping movement. However, Ying et al discloses detect a speed of the swiping movement through the one or more portions of the selected graphical object; and apply the effect corresponding to the user-selectable tool at a rate that is dependent at least partially on the detected speed of the swiping movement (0024, 0048: speed in which each transition animation is performed is based on the speed of the swipe gesture on/through the pages/GUI. The faster the swipe, the faster the animation is performed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Ying et al since it would have provided the benefit of an efficient approach for presenting content and providing users with intuitive navigational access to the content. (0002)
Claims 25-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of Hanna et al in further view of Collins et al (US20090187842, 2009)
As per dependent claims 25-26, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the display screen is a touch-sensitive display screen; wherein the touch-sensitive display screen comprises a tactile surface configured to receive user input for the graphical user interface. However, Collins et al discloses disclose the display screen is a touch- sensitive display screen; wherein the touch-sensitive display screen comprises a tactile surface configured to receive user input for the graphical user interface. (0034, 0036-0037)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclosed teachings of Collins et al since it would have provided the benefit of a novel, open ended, programmable electronic device for which its functions are open to further software development (0018)
Claims 28-29, 34-36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addicts in further view of Hanna et al in further view of Marsland et al (US20120264520, filed 6/30/2011)
As per dependent claim 28, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a database wherein the computing hardware is further configured to: continuously record and update, in the database, respective states of the one or more selectable graphical objects, following an interruption in operation of the graphical user interface, resume the one or more selectable graphical objects in their respective last updated states stored in the database. However, Marsland et al discloses a database… continuously record and update, in the database, respective states of the one or more selectable graphical objects, following an interruption in operation of the graphical user interface, resume the one or more selectable graphical objects in their respective last updated states stored in the database (0106-0110, 0156)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cited art with the disclose teachings of Marsland et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing digital incentives in computer implemented online games (0002)
As per dependent claim 29, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the electronic device is connected to a server through a network, the graphical user interface is generated on the electronic device concurrently with respective graphical user interfaces of the building game generated on a plurality of other electronic devices connected to the server; and the graphical user interface and the respective graphical user interfaces are coordinated through the server and concurrently updated to facilitate interaction and coordination among a
As per dependent claim 34, Claim 34 recites similar limitations as in Claim 28 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 35, Claim 35 recites similar limitations as in Claim 29 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 36, the cited art fails to disclose wherein the building game implemented as an online multiplayer game in which the plurality of users interact through the respective graphical user interfaces (Abstract; 0041; Claim 1)
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/5/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Pats 11875031, 11119645, 10702777, 8954890 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 8/5/26, with respect to claims 21-37 rejected under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claims 21-37 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-13, in regards to the 35 USC 112b rejection, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the independent claims has overcome the pending issues in Claims 1-18 that were disclosed in the previous office action. However, the amendments made to the recently filed claims comprise new issues within the claims that were not previously presented. The Examiner respectfully points to the Applicant to the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section of the office action above regarding the matter. Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) to the claims remain.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-37 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights