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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 05/27/2026. Presently, claims 1-15, and 17-20 are pending.
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 17-20 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”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent Claim 1: A method for processing information in a game, comprising:
providing, after a present game starts, 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 is a virtual scene that is displayed on a graphical user interface of a terminal device when an application is executed on the terminal device or a server, and the virtual interactive environment comprises a first mobile carrier corresponding to the first camp and a second mobile carrier corresponding to the second camp, wherein the first mobile carrier and the second mobile carrier are transporters that can carry one or more virtual objects and are controlled to move in the virtual interactive environment based on a quantity of the virtual objects they carry, wherein the virtual object can be controlled by the first character or the second character to move in the virtual interactive environment;
determining, when the virtual object moves into the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier, a position of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier in the virtual interactive environment, and displaying, based on a determined position of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier in the virtual interactive environment, prompt information on the graphical user interface of the terminal device, to display a real-time position of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier in the form of the prompt information, wherein the prompt information is configured to represent movement information of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier; and
determining that the movement information of the first mobile carrier or the second mobile carrier meets a preset settlement condition, and settling 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 graphical user interface,” “a terminal device,” “a server” (as recited in independent claim 1), “a processor, a memory, and a bus,” (as recited in independent claim 17) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (as recited 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 graphical user interface,” “a terminal device,” “a server” (as recited in independent claim 1), “a processor, a memory, and a bus,” (as recited in independent claim 17) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (as recited 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 graphical user interface,” “a terminal device,” “a server” (as recited in independent claim 1), “a processor, a memory, and a bus,” (as recited in independent claim 17) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (as recited in independent claim 18) are described in the following paragraphs:
“[0080] The graphical user interface is a display format of an interface for communication between humans and computers, allowing users to manipulate icons or menu options on the display screen by using input devices such as a mouse, a keyboard, a game controller, etc. It also allows users to manipulate icons or menu options on the display screen by performing touch operations on a touch screen of the terminal device, to select commands, start programs, or perform other tasks.”
“[0079] The terminal device can include but is not limited to any of the following devices: smartphones, tablets, portable computers, desktop computers, digital TVs, game consoles, etc.”
“[0072] The storage and running of the method for the processing information are completed on the cloud game server, and the client device is used to receive and send data, as well as present the game picture. For example, the client device can be a display device with data transmission function near the user side, such as a mobile terminal, a TV, a computer, a handheld computer, etc. The terminal device for perform the information processing is the cloud game server in the cloud. When playing games, players operate the client device to send operation instructions to the cloud game server. The cloud game server runs the game based on the operation instructions, encodes and compresses the game data such as the game picture, and returns the game data to the client device through the network. Finally, the client device decodes and outputs the game picture.”
“[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.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a graphical user interface,” “a terminal device,” “a server” (as recited in independent claim 1), “a processor, a memory, and a bus,” (as recited in independent claim 17) and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” (as recited in independent claim 18) are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, o of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-15, and 19-20 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 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and Contingent Limitations:
The Contingent Limitations discussed in the Non-Final Action mailed out on 02/18/2026 that are found in original claims 1-4, 6-8, 17-18, and 20 have been overcome due to the Amendments the Applicant has filed on 05/27/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 filed on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered. The rejection set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed out on 02/18/2026 set forth under 36 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant states on page 4 of the remarks “When a large amount of resources is consumed for rendering the virtual scenes, the runtime performance, such as smoothness and responsiveness, of the game may be adversely affected” and states that as the user is playing in real time the position is only displayed so “the amount of graphical rendering and data processing for presenting the game scene can be reduced.” However, using a computer to run a game and processing for what the user is prompting to be displayed only is not recited in a way to show the technological improvement to the claim. In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant states on pages 5-6 of the remarks that “the computational burden associated with real-time rendering can be reduced, thereby improving the resource utilization (including CPU/GPU usage and memory bandwidth), and enhancing the display smoothness and responsiveness of the terminal device. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicants assert arguments for (1) an improvement to the functioning of a computer and (2) a more general improvement to an existing technological process. However, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because applicant’s claim 1 fails to recite (1) any limitations detailing “resource utilization”, how to efficiently “enhance display smoothness and responsiveness” or how management of services are allowed to be more efficient, and (2) any limitations detailing how the improvements are reducing computational burdens. When a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim, then the claim does not become patent eligible. SeeIntellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (“Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”).
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 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
Prosecution Insights