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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 02/13/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Claims 5, 9-11, and 30 was cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-19, and 21-23 are now 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 1-4, 6-8, 12-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-19, and 21-23, has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method, a terminal and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium in the claims. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
In step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the invention relates to displaying a game interface.
The abstract idea is defined by the italicized portions in Claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 16 and 23. Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-8, 12-15, and 17-22 either further define the abstract idea (e.g., by defining certain game rules) (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced is effectively a set of instructions to displaying information on the graphical user interface for the player, thus providing at least one step or instruction or rule for: (i) providing a game involving managing interactions between people, namely, following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Therefore, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 16, and 23 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed device, method and non-transitory computer-readable medium merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a memory, a processor, and a computer program, stored on the memory and executable by the processor, as). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. These additional elements of: a memory, a processor, and a computer program…are generically recited computer elements in the claims that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. For example, applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent Claims is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do 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 recite a memory, a processor, a terminal device, a graphical user interface, and a computer program. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Furthermore, the recitation of the above-identified generic computer limitations in the Claims amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, none of the Claims 1 to 8, and 12 to 23 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-19, and 21-23 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0147488 A1 to Tang et al. (hereinafter Tang).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 16 and 23, (Currently Amended) Tang discloses a method for displaying a game interface a terminal device, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored on the memory and executable by the processor, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, …: comprising:
in response to a configuration trigger operation for [[the ]]a virtual object, shortening a distance between a virtual camera and the virtual object, and displaying a function control for configuring the virtual object (figs. 1-4A, paras. [0023]-[0026] discloses detect, when detecting a skill operation trigger gesture on at least one skill object deployed in a skill operation area in the GUI, movement of the skill object with a skill release trigger gesture, to determine a release location of the skill object … and Detect a distance between the release location and the user character object, and adjust, when the distance is greater than a skill release distance, the user character object to move towards the release location);
wherein a graphical user interface is provided by a terminal device, the graphical user interface comprises a game image captured by the virtual camera, and the game image comprises the virtual object (figs. 1-4A user character object a10, paras. [0023]-[0026] discloses perform rendering in the GUI, to obtain at least one virtual resource object, at least one of the virtual resource object being configured as a user character object that performs a virtual operation according to an input user command. In other words, the method includes rendering one or more virtual resource object in a graphical user interface (GUI), at least one of the one or more virtual resource object being configured as a user character object that performs a virtual operation according to an input user command); and
configuring content corresponding to the function control for the virtual object in response to a selection operation for the function control (figs. 1-4A, paras. [0027]-[0028] discloses the GUI further includes at least one skill object 802, and the user may control, by means of a skill release operation, the user character object to perform a corresponding skill release operation);
wherein the graphical user interface further comprises first interface information, and the method further comprises:
hiding the first interface information in response to the configuration trigger operation for the virtual object (figs. 4a-5c).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), and similarly recited Claim 17, (Original) Tang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the content corresponding to the function control comprises at least one of the following: a skill, equipment or a skin (figs. 1-4a, skill object 802).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), and similarly recited Claim 18, (Original) Tang discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: controlling the virtual camera to rotate a preset angle towards a preset direction in response to the configuration trigger operation for the virtual object (figs. 4a-5c, paras. [0035]-[0036], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), and similarly recited Claim 19, (Original) Tang discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: displaying a target layer in response to the configuration trigger operation for the virtual object, wherein the function control is located on the target layer, and the target layer is transparent (figs. 4a-5c, paras. [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 21, (Currently Amended) Tang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, the method further comprises:
displaying a return control (figs. 4a-5c, paras. [0066]-[0069]);
hiding the function control and lengthening the distance between the virtual camera and the virtual object in response to a trigger operation for the return control (figs. 4a-5c, paras. [0043]-[0044], [0066]-[0069]).
Regarding Claim 7 (Previously Presented), and similarly recited Claim 22, (Currently Amended) Tang discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises:
displaying a return control (figs. 4a-5c, paras. [0066]-[0069]);:
hiding the function control in response to a trigger operation for the return control (figs. 4a-5c, paras. [0066]-[0069]);
lengthening the distance between the virtual camera and the virtual object, and controlling the virtual camera to rotate a preset angle towards a direction opposite to the preset direction (figs. 4a-5c, paras. [0043]-[0044], [0066]-[0069]).
Regarding Claim 8, (Previously Presented) Tang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: displaying second interface information on the graphical user interface in response to a configuration completion operation for the virtual object, wherein the second interface information comprises configured content information of the virtual object.
Regarding Claim 12, (Currently Amended) Tang discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the first interface information comprises at least one of the following: a virtual object control, a virtual object configuration control, current configuration information and object introduction information of the virtual object (figs. 1-5C, paras. [0044] discloses the GUI 800 obtained through rendering includes the at least one user character object a10 and at least one skill object, and in this example, includes a skill object 802a, a skill object 802b, a skill object 802c, and a skill object 802d).
Regarding Claim 13, (Previously Presented) Tang discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the virtual object is located on the target layer (figs. 1-5C).
Regarding Claim 14, (Presently Presented) Tang discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the virtual object is not located on the target layer (figs. 1-5C).
Regarding Claim 15, (Presently Presented) Tang discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the target layer covers the game image (figs. 1-5C).
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 SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 at (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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights