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 1-2, 4-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically the claims are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in the form of “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) where “rules for playing games” was determined as an abstract idea. Review of applications specification, for example Par. 32, suggests that the first and second virtual objects in the game recited by applicant are different human players participating in the game. The independent claim 1 is representative of claims 1, 13, and 14 and recites “the game stage comprises an action stage and a discussion stage” and “obtaining a skill configuration parameter of the first virtual object to determine an additional skill, newly added on a basis of a default skill, of the first virtual object, wherein the default skill is a skill assigned according to an identity attribute of the first virtual object; when determining that a completion progress of a virtual task in the game stage reaches a progress threshold, controlling the first virtual object to unlock the additional skill, and providing an additional skill control that is configured to trigger the additional skill…” and “wherein the additional skill comprises at least one of: an identity gambling skill, an identity verification skill, a guidance skill, and a task doubling skill; and in a case that the additional skill comprises the task doubling skill, the method further comprises: in a case that the task doubling skill is unlocked, in response to a task doubling skill control being triggered, doubling, when a virtual task corresponding to the first virtual object is completed by the first virtual object, a reward of the virtual task according to a preset ratio.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor, storage medium, bus, non-transitory computer readable medium, and display are simply recitation of a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further recitation of displaying game scenes via a “graphical user interface” and a with “skill control” to “trigger the skill” in the graphical user interface generically and at a high level amounts to little more than adding insignificant extra-solution display and/or data gathering activity for the game. As such these limitation fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-11, and 15-19 recite additional abstract details of the judicial exception and/or recite generic extra solution display activity by stating that abstract elements recited at a high level are simply displayed in the graphical user interface. Claim 20 recites a progress bar generically and a high level and without any specificity which likewise is considered insignificant extra solution display activity. As such these limitations fail to 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 the additional elements of a processor, storage medium, bus, non-transitory computer readable medium, and display recite well-understood, routine and conventional computer activity. Further, Toyohara et al., Col. 6 lines 21-37, teaches where it is conventional to have a display on a device provide an interface via menus and such which allow a player to control a game character (e.g. a virtual object), and provide arbitrary inputs via graphical user interface functionality like menus to advance the progress of play. As such recitation of a “graphical user interface” for displaying game scenes and allowing player control represent well-understood, routine and conventional computer activity in the gaming arts. As such, even when considered as a whole these elements fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-11, and 15-19 recite additional abstract details of the judicial exception and/or recite generic extra solution display activity by stating that abstract elements recited at a high level are simply displayed in the graphical user interface. Claim 20 recites a progress bar generically and a high level and without any specificity Wikipedia.org webpage “Progress Bar” teaches where progress bars in computers for showing when a particular even will occur in computer software are well-known routine and conventional when claimed generically at such a high level. As such these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered. In regard to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, in light of applicant’s amendments to the Claims incorporating the limitations of claims 3 and 9, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
Regarding applications arguments directed towards rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, they are not persuasive. Firstly, the newly incorporated limitations of Claims 3 and 9 described additional abstract game functionality and thus do not themselves represent additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor which add significantly more than the abstract idea. Simply because “specific” functionality is implemented by a terminal device, i.e. a general purpose computer, at a high level is not sufficient for eligibility if the claims also recite an abstract idea. Further, applicant appears to argue that “unlocking” a skill represents the improvement to technology. However, the “unlocking” of a skill represents abstract functionality of game rules as described above. Further, this appears to be a design decision of the abstract game for gameplay reasons, not a technological improvement designed to generally reduce consumption of “terminal resources” as argued by applicant. Par. 43 of applicant’s disclosure appears to be what applicant is referencing in for this supposed improvement and states : “The release of the additional skill can help the player eliminate a virtual object in the opposing camp through corresponding reasoning. In this way, the game progress may be accelerated, thereby reducing the consumption of the power and the data traffic of the terminal during the game.” However, any “acceleration” of game progress is simply in the abstract pace of the game rules governed by the unlocking of the skill, it is a design consideration of the play of the game itself which is a program that is designed to operate to provide player enjoyment during play. Any improvement in power and data traffic is essentially no different to the player simply not playing the game at all. Even if this supposed improvement to technology were an additional element, which it is not, examiner does not find it persuasive that “ending the game faster” constitutes an improvement to the technology or computer which would provide integration into a practical application as required.
Further, with regard to the graphical interface, the simple fact that the unlocking is performed via display of the graphical user interface is insignificant extra solution activity when claimed generically at such a high level. Applicant has not claimed relationship of the unlocking of the skill to the graphical user interface in any detail or specificity. The only relationship is that it is in a first virtual scene which is displayed in a graphical user interface. No particular structure or detailed functionality of the graphical user interface is described to implement the supposed improvement. If the technological improvement is a particular manner of displaying this functionality in the graphical user interface it should be reflected in the claims. As such, the recitation of a graphical user interface appears to be little more than insignificant extra solution activity as described above. Examiner has provided the Toyohara et al. reference which teaches the conventionality of display game progress through virtual scenes with virtual objects such as player characters, and where the player advances game progress by providing inputs to graphical user interface elements such as menus. Therefore, even when considering the claims as a whole, they neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
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
