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 .
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, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15, 17-21 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A method for controlling a game object, performed by an electronic device comprising:
displaying a first medicine usage recommendation interface on a graphical user interface provided by the electronic device according to at least one type of status information of the game object and a status medicine currently carried by the game object, wherein the status medicine is used for adjusting status information of the game object, and the first medicine usage recommendation interface comprises at least one status icon corresponding to the status information, a first target status medicine and a first recovery control;
displaying a status icon corresponding to the first target status medicine differently from other status icons among the at least one status icon; and
adjusting the status information of the game object by using the first target status medicine in response to a first trigger operation acting on the first recovery control.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are mental processes, as all of the steps could be performed entirely with the human mind or with pen and paper as a human could recommend medicine usages within a game (such as a tabletop role playing game) based on status information, and adjust the status information of the game object by using the target status medicine (such as using a health potion in a tabletop role playing game)
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
An electronic device, displaying of the information on the screen on a graphical user interface as well as receiving a trigger operation is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
An electronic device, displaying of the information on the screen on a graphical user interface as well as receiving a trigger operation is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims of 2-15, and 19-21 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 20200298123).
In claims 1, 17, and 18, Yang discloses
Displaying a first medicine usage recommendation interface on a graphical user interface provided by a first terminal device according to at least one type of status information of the game object and a status medicine currently carried by the game object, wherein the status medicine is used for adjusting status information of the game object, and the first medicine usage recommendation interface comprises at least one status icon corresponding to the status information, a first target status medicine and a first recovery control (paragraph 53, see fig 6 and 7, paragraphs 160-161 “bandage” and “first aid kit”, which is based on the health amount of “50-75%” or “25-50%” )
Displaying a status icon corresponding to the first target status medicine differently from other status icons among the at least one status icon and (paragraph 53, figures 6 and 7, the first aid kit is shown as an H, and the bandage is shown as a bandage)
Adjusting the status information of the game object by using the first target status medicine in response to a first trigger operation acting on the first recovery control (paragraph 160-161, a user can replenish a small amount of health when between 50 and 75% with the bandage, or a relatively large quantity when between 25 and 50% with the first aid kit, table 1 shows that a shortcut button can directly use the current virtual item)
In claims 2 and 19, Yang discloses displaying the status icon corresponding to the first target status medicine differently from other status icons among the at least one status icon comprises: determining the first target status medicine in the status medicine according to a status medicine recommendation rule and displaying the status icon corresponding to the first target status medicine differently (figures 6 and 7 the first aid kit is shown as an H, and the bandage is shown as a bandage)
In claim 3, Yang discloses wherein the status medicine comprises a special status medicine and a general status medicine wherein determining the first target status medicine in the status medicine according to the status medicine recommendation rule comprises determining in response to presence of a special status medicine corresponding to the status information, the special status medicine as the first target status medicine, and determining in response to absence of the special status medicine corresponding to the status information, the general status medicine at the first target status medicine (table 1 shows the sorting rules for medicines, the highest priority medicine would teach “special” under BRI, and if the player does not have the highest priority medicine (such as energy drink when health is at 100%), it would instead use the second highest one (painkillers) which teaches “general status medicine” under BRI)
In claim 4, Yang discloses displaying the status icon corresponding to the first target status medicine differently comprises displaying in response to the first target status medicine being a special status medicine, the status icon corresponding to the first target status medicine differently and displaying in response to the first target status medicine being a general medicine, all status icons differently (all target status icons are displayed differently, such as bandage and first aid both having their own icons as shown in figures 6 and 7)
In claim 5, Yang discloses the first target status medicine is in a selected state (paragraph 50, figures 6 and 7, the target status medicine is in the shortcut location which is a selected state ready to use)
In claim 6, Yang discloses canceling, in response to a second trigger operation acting on the first target status medicine, differential display of the status icon corresponding to the first target status medicine and adjusting the first target status medicine into an unselected status (table 1 says you can switch to a certain medicine of your choice, which will not recommend medicine on the shortcut use bar for 30 seconds)
In claims 7 and 20, Yang discloses displaying a second medicine usage recommendation interface on the graphical user interface according to a health value of the game object and a treatment medicine currently carried by the game object, wherein the treatment medicine is used for restoring the health value of the game object, the second medicine usage recommendation interface comprises a first target treatment medicine and a second recovery control, and the first target treatment medicine is in a selected status by default (Yang discloses the invention related to an “attribute value”, using health as the example, however, multiple attribute values can be used, as paragraph 42 shows for example increasing the attribute value of the virtual attack equipment, and even discloses a “recovery category” meaning that different categories of attributes can be recovered similarly to health As such, the health value and a different attribute value may both have a medicine usage recommendation)
In claim 8, Yang discloses determining the first target treatment medicine according to a treatment medicine recommendation rule (table 1 shows the order based on the amount of health)
In claim 9, Yang discloses determining the first target treatment medicine according to the treatment medicine recommendation rule comprises obtaining a recovery health value of a pending treatment medicine currently carried by the game object and obtaining a total health value by performing calculation on the health value of the game object and the recovery health value and determining the pending treatment medicine as the first target treatment medicine according to the total health value (table 1, paragraphs 160-161)
In claim 10, Yang discloses determining the pending treatment medicine as the first target treatment medicine according to the total health value comprises at least one of determining the total health value being greater than a first health threshold and less than a second health threshold, a first medicine quantity of the pending treatment medicine according to the total health value so as to determining the pending treatment medicine with the first medicine quantity as the first target treatment medicine (it is noted by examiner that as this is a Markush group, only one needs to be taught by the prior art. Table 1 shows upper and lower thresholds and the amount of recovery being used is based upon this threshold)
In claim 11 Yang discloses determining the first medicine quantity of the pending treatment medicine according to the total health value comprises determining in response to the total health value being less than the second threshold, the first medicine quantity of the pending treatment medicine when the total health value is maximum (table 1 shows the priority being on energy drink when the health is at 100%)
In claim 13, Yang discloses displaying in response to the total health value being greater than the first health threshold and less than the second health threshold or in response to the total health being greater than or equal to the second health threshold and less than or equal to the third health threshold, value prompt information corresponding to the total health value and obtaining in response to the total health value being greater than the third health threshold, and overflow value by performing calculations on the total health value and the third health threshold and displaying the overflow value differently (it is noted by examiner that the term “overflow value” is extremely broad and is not given any particulars as to what this value is. The BRI of this terminology is taught by a full health bar, which is shown differently (completely black as shown in figure 4) as compared to a non-full health bar (see figure 5 which is not completely black)
In claims 14 and 21, Yang discloses displaying a third medicine usage recommendation interface on the GUI according to the health value of the game object and the at least one type of status information as well as the treatment medicine and the status medicine currently carried by the game object wherein the third medicine usage recommendation interface comprises a second target treatment medicine and a second target status medicine and a third recovery control and adjusting in response to a fourth trigger operation acting on the third recovery control, the status information of the game object by using the second target status medicine and increasing the health value of the game object by using the second target treatment medicine (the backpack has all of the items, sorted in order as shown in paragraphs 104-106, 118-119)
In claim 15, Yang discloses providing in response to a trigger operation on the GUI a selection list on the GUI wherein the selection list at least comprises a first medicine usage recommendation interface trigger identification, a second medicine usage recommendation interface trigger identification and a third medicine usage recommendation interface trigger identification and displaying in response to a selection operation on the selection list, a medicine usage recommendation interface corresponding to the selection operation on the GUI (paragraphs 104-106, 118-119, a player may look inside the backpack which would have all the items sorted and select one)
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, 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
in claim 12, Yang discloses determining the pending treatment medicine with the second medicine quantity as the first target treatment medicine according to the health value of the object (recovery items with higher health recoveries are chosen when more health is missing and lower when less health is missing, see paragraphs 160-161, table 1). Yang fails to disclose that the different medicines have a price, and determining a medicine price by performing calculation on the single medicine price and the pending usage quantity and determining the pending treatment medicine with the second medicine quantity as the first target treatment medicine according to a lowest medicine price, however Official notice is taken that allowing for players to purchase virtual items such as medicine would have been notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and further that use of cost effectiveness for prioritization was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yang with these well-known techniques in order to allow for the invention of yang to be sorted by pricing rather than size of the potion, so as to allow for the most cost effective usage of items.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendments overcome the 112 rejection
Applicant's arguments with respect to 101, 102, and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the steps of the method do not belong to a mental process nor can be performed entirely by the human mind, as the features are performed by an electronic device and involves interaction between a user and a game screen, and a graphical user interface. However, Examiner clearly indicated the portions of the claims which were found to be abstract by underlining the abstract language, wherein Examiner did not underline the displaying or electronic device portion of the claim. These additional features which were not found to be abstract were considered under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B as set forth in the rejection above.
With respect to the 102 rejection, applicant argues that “if the health point of the virtual control object is considered as the status icon corresponding to the status information in claim 1, and the identifier the recommended virtual item is considered as the first target status medicine in claim 1, Yang is at least silent about the first recovery control in claim 1”. To be clear, applicant has not claimed “status information”, “a first target status medicine”, or “a first recovery control” has been displayed. Applicant claimed “displaying a first medicine usage recommendation interface” and “the first medicine usage information recommendation interface comprises at least one status icon”, which would mean that the one status icon would also be displayed. However the status icon is merely “corresponding to the status information, a first target status medicine, and a first recovery control”, meaning that there is some, potentially tangential or indirect relationship between the status icon and these other features. Further, even if this were not the case, Yang teaches displaying the first recovery control, as there is a circle around the status icon, wherein this circle (including the portion within it) would be the display of the recovery control, with the status icon being displayed upon the recovery control.
Applicant goes on to further argue that “Yang at most discloses that the recommended virtual item is used in response to a trigger operation acting on the identifier of the recommended virtual item, accordingly it is impossible for Yang to teach adjusting the status information of the game object by using the first target status medicine in response to a first trigger operation acting on the first recovery control”. This argument, along with the prior argument, appears to be arguing that the prior art would need a button which is displayed separately from the status icon (see for example figure 17 of the instant application, which has a button which says RECOVERY). However, this feature is not positively claimed. The “recovery control” is claimed very broadly, however even giving a narrower interpretation than what Examiner would consider the BRI, such as “a portion of the screen which the user may click on to trigger use of the status medicine”, would be read on by the teaching of Yang by allowing for clicking of the status icon. However as described above, even if that were not the case, Yang teaches displaying the first recovery control.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715