DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 10/26/2023. Claims 1-15, and 17-21 are currently pending and are examined 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 .
Preliminary Amendments
The amendments made on 10/26/2023 have been entered and accepted. The amendments entered are the following:
The Specification has been amended “to improve its form and readabilility” according to page 1 of the remarks.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-15, 17-18 have been amended. Claims 19-21 are new. Claim 16 has been canceled.
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 1-15, and 17-21 are 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 1 recites the limitation first or second mobile carrier throughout the claim. It is unclear if the first or second mobile carrier is a backpack on the virtual character or if it is a vehicle that the virtual character is controlling. It is also unclear how the mobile carrier is moved by placing the item inside the carrier. Claim 8 further recites a “displacing component” that is used to drive the material collected in game. According to the Specification in at least ¶97 “the displacing component includes at least one of the following: a conveyor belt control, a steering wheel control, a spring control, a push rod control, a wind blowing control, and a water flowing control.” It is clear that the displacing component is a vehicle; however, it is not clear what the first or second mobile carrier is in relation to the displacing component. The claims appear to be a semi-literal translation from a foreign language. Claims 2-15, and 19-21 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds. Claims 17 and 18 recite claim language similar in scope to claim 1, and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Contingent Limitation
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 17-18 and 20 contain the following Contingent Limitations:
Claim 1: “providing, in response to a starting condition of a present game, a virtual interactive environment configured for interaction between a first character belonging to a first camp and a second character belonging to a second camp”
Claim 1: “controlling, in response to a first contact interaction between the first character or the second character and a material, the material to move in the virtual interactive environment”
Claim 1: “controlling, in response to the material moving into the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier, the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier to adjust a position of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier in the virtual interactive environment”
Claim 1: “settling, in response to the movement information of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier meeting a preset settlement condition”
Claim 2: “refreshing, in response to a material refresh condition”
Claim 3: “refreshing, in response to a time process of the present game meeting a preset interval threshold condition”
Claim 4: “refreshing, in response to determining that a quantity of a material that exists in the virtual interactive environment of the present game”
Claim 6: “determining, in response to the first contact interaction between the first character or the second character and the material, a first interaction parameter of the first contact interaction between the first character or the second character and the material”
Claim 7: “binding, in response to a picking operation exerted on the material by the first character or the second character, the material with the first character or the second character”
Claim 7: “controlling, in response to a directional control operation for the first character or the second character, the first character or the second character to move in the virtual interactive environment”
Claim 8: “determining, in response to a second contact interaction between the displacing component and the material, a second interaction parameter of the second contact interaction between the displacing component and the material”
Claim 17: “provide, in response to a starting condition of a present game, a virtual interactive environment configured for interaction between a first character belonging to a first camp and a second character belonging to a second camp”
Claim 17: “control, in response to a first contact interaction between the first character or the second character and the material, the material to move in the virtual interactive environment”
Claim 17: “control, in response to the material moving into the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier, the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier to adjust a position of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier”
Claim 17: “settle, in response to the movement information of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier meeting a preset settlement condition, the present game”
Claim 18: “providing, in response to a starting condition of a present game, a virtual interactive environment configured for interaction between a first character belonging to a first camp and a second character belonging to a second camp”
Claim 18: “controlling, in response to a first contact interaction between the first character or the second character and a material, the material to move in the virtual interactive environment”
Claim 18: “controlling, in response to the material moving into the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier, the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier to adjust a position of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier in the virtual interactive environment”
Claim 18: “settling, in response to the movement information of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier meeting a preset settlement condition, the present game”
Claim 20: “driving, in response to one material being pushed into the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier, the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier to move forward by a preset distance”
The MPEP recites the following guides for Contingent Clauses:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” See MPEP 2111.04 II.
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.” See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitation (16)-(21) as noted above, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim limitations (1)-(15), and (21)-(22) as noted above, are a process claim and Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to that limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II
"‘[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed…’ Therefore ‘[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);’ however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations”
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require “a virtual interactive environment configured for interaction” and the steps that come after determining a reward since the conditional phrases “in response to” does not require that the interaction event is actually made (i.e., “a method for processing information in a game, comprising: providing, in response to a starting condition of a present game, a virtual interactive environment”; rather that there is processing information in a game).
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 1-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a method for processing information” (i.e. a method), claim 17 is directed to “an electronic device” (i.e. a machine), and claim 18 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of following game rules of resource gathering within a game to reach a winning condition either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Independent Representative Claim 1: A method for processing information in a game, comprising:
providing, in response to a starting condition of a present game, a virtual interactive environment configured for interaction between a first character belonging to a first camp and a second character belonging to a second camp, wherein the virtual interactive environment comprises a first mobile carrier corresponding to the first camp and a second mobile carrier corresponding to the second camp;
controlling, in response to a first contact interaction between the first character or the second character and a material, the material to move in the virtual interactive environment;
controlling, in response to the material moving into the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier, the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier to adjust a position of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier in the virtual interactive environment, and displaying, based on the position of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier in the virtual interactive environment, prompt information on a graphical user interface of a terminal device, wherein the prompt information is configured to represent movement information of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier; and
settling, in response to the movement information of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier meeting a preset settlement condition, the present game.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a processor, a memory, and a bus,” (as found in independent claim 17) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (as found in independent claim 18) are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed following game rules is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a processor, a memory, and a bus,” (as found in independent claim 17) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (as found in independent claim 18) are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a processor, a memory, and a bus,” (as found in independent claim 17) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (as found in independent claim 18) are described in the following paragraphs:
“[00168] When the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the method for processing the information in the game as shown in FIG. 1 can be executed”
“[0051] embodiments of the present disclosure provide an electronic device including a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine readable instructions executable by the processor, and when the electronic device is running, the processor communicates with the memory through the bus, and the processor executes the machine readable instructions to execute steps of the method for processing the information in the game as described above.”
“[0007] a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a program stored thereon, which when executed by a processor, causes the method for processing the information in the game as described above.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a processor, a memory, and a bus,” (as found in independent claim 17) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (as found in independent claim 18) is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-15, and 19-21 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-15, and 19-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims Not Rejected by Prior Art
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 do not currently have a prior art rejection applied to them; however, they have a 35 U.S.C. § 101, and 112(b) rejection applied to them. The closest prior art made of record is Moving Out as evidenced by IGN YouTube Video (screenshots attached). Moving out shows two virtual characters carrying materials into what appears to be a mobile carrier. It is unclear what the claimed mobile carrier is in respect to the instant application. The adjustments made to the mobile carrier by the materials isn’t taught by Moving Out as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715