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 .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 07/07/2026, claims 1-7 and 9-21 remain pending, of which, 1, 9, and 10 were amended.
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 1-7 and 9-21 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. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 9 and 10, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A game equipment replacement method, comprising:
providing, by a terminal device configured to execute a game and display a graphical user interface of the game, a virtual equipment setting interface on the graphical user interface of the terminal device, wherein the game comprises a game scene and a player virtual character in the game scene, and the player virtual character is configured to perform a game action based on a game instruction received by the graphical user interface;
in response to a virtual equipment scheme setting operation on the virtual equipment setting interface of the terminal device, setting, by the terminal device, an initial equipment scheme for the player virtual character, and setting, by the terminal device, replacement equipment for part or all of virtual equipment in the initial equipment scheme (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
providing, by the terminal device based on the initial equipment scheme, a shortcut equipment configuration control on the graphical user interface of the terminal device, and configuring, by the terminal device in response to a trigger operation on the shortcut equipment configuration control, corresponding virtual equipment for the player virtual character (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
setting, by the terminal device on the graphical user interface of the terminal device in response to the player virtual character being configured with target virtual equipment, at least one of an equipment skill trigger control or an equipment skill state control of the target virtual equipment, wherein the equipment skill trigger control is used for actively triggering a game skill corresponding to the target virtual equipment, and the equipment skill state control is used for displaying a state of the game skill corresponding to the target virtual equipment;
displaying, by the terminal device in response to a preset display trigger event, an equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at a position associated with the at least one of the equipment skill trigger control or the equipment skill state control; and
replacing, by the terminal device in response to a trigger operation on the equipment replacement control, the target virtual equipment with corresponding replacement equipment (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 9 and 10) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a graphical user interface, a computer-readable storage medium, a processor, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game. These limitations describe following a prescribed sequence of steps, conditions, and outcomes that govern the play of a game (e.g., setting equipment schemes, configuring character equipment loadouts, and replacing equipment based on rules of game play). It is well established that rules for playing games fall squarely within the abstract idea exception grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. These claim limitations are categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities as they merely recite the rules and instructions for conducting a game, implemented utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7 and 11-21:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea (i.e., additional game rules and/or instructions for conducting the game), without reciting elements sufficient to establish to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a graphical user interface, a computer-readable storage medium, a processor”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
In addition to the abstract ideas indicated above, the claims include additional elements, such as:
“providing, by a terminal device configured to execute a game and display a graphical user interface of the game, a virtual equipment setting interface on the graphical user interface of the terminal device, wherein the game comprises a game scene and a player virtual character in the game scene, and the player virtual character is configured to perform a game action based on a game instruction received by the graphical user interface”;
“providing, by the terminal device based on the initial equipment scheme, a shortcut equipment configuration control on the graphical user interface of the terminal device”;
“setting, by the terminal device on the graphical user interface of the terminal device in response to the player virtual character being configured with target virtual equipment, at least one of an equipment skill trigger control or an equipment skill state control of the target virtual equipment, wherein the equipment skill trigger control is used for actively triggering a game skill corresponding to the target virtual equipment, and the equipment skill state control is used for displaying a state of the game skill corresponding to the target virtual equipment”; and
“displaying, by the terminal device in response to a preset display trigger event, an equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at a position associated with the at least one of the equipment skill trigger control or the equipment skill state control”.
As claimed, these additional elements are viewed as steps and/or instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a graphical user interface, a computer-readable storage medium, a processor are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2011/0216060, which discloses that a conventional gaming system comprises elements such as a graphical user interface, a computer-readable storage medium and a processor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶100). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 6-7, 9-11, 15-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al (U.S. 2013/0331180) in view of Alderman et al (U.S. 2021/0031106).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10, Heller discloses:
a game equipment replacement method (¶7), comprising:
providing, by a terminal device configured to execute a game and display a graphical user interface of the game (¶19-21, Fig. 1, a game console 113 which is configured to execute program instructions to provide for gameplay and output display events on an associated display which displays a game user interface, wherein the game console 113 is also configured to display options for equipping a game character directly on the device), a virtual equipment setting interface on the graphical user interface of the terminal device, wherein the game comprises a game scene and a player virtual character in the game scene (¶19-21, the video game (e.g., a fighting game, FPS game, role playing game or vehicle simulator game) includes a character with various skills and capabilities and is equipped with equipment for use during gameplay), the player virtual character is configured to perform a game action based on a game instruction received by the graphical user interface (¶19, the player provides game inputs to control the character during gameplay);
in response to a virtual equipment scheme setting operation on the virtual equipment setting interface displayed on the graphical user interface of the terminal device (¶25, ¶31-35, Fig. 3, the system displays possible personalization selections (i.e., options for equipping game characters) and receives personalization selections from player inputs (i.e., equipment selections)), setting, by the terminal device, an initial equipment scheme for the player virtual character (¶23, Fig. 2, Fig. 6, personalization information for the character is set or modified based on the player selection, for example an initial equipment selection), and setting, by the terminal device, replacement equipment for part or all of virtual equipment in the initial equipment scheme (¶25, ¶28, ¶47, Fig. 6, the system allows the player to set different sets of personalization selections to later be selected by the player prior or during gameplay);
providing, by the terminal device based on the initial equipment scheme, a shortcut equipment configuration control on the graphical user interface of the terminal device (¶11, ¶28, ¶47-48, Fig. 6, the system presents the player with an option to accept or further update the selected personalization options, wherein upon selection of the “Update Selection” option the device transmits the personalization selections to a server for further processing), and configuring, by the terminal device in response to a trigger operation on the shortcut equipment configuration control, corresponding virtual equipment for the player virtual character (¶21, ¶28, ¶42-45, Fig. 5, selection of the option to accept the selected personalization options causes the system to configure modify the game character information to include the personalization options which causes the game character to be equipped with the selected personalization options);
setting, by the terminal device on the graphical user interface of the terminal device in response to the player virtual character being configured with target virtual equipment, wherein the equipment skill trigger control is used for actively triggering a game skill corresponding to the target virtual equipment (¶28, Fig. 5, after the character’s loadout is configured, the system executes the game and the display reflects the character’s equipment configuration), at least one of an equipment skill trigger control (¶7, ¶19, the virtual characters have various skills and capabilities associated with their equipment which are part of their loadout, the examiner interprets an input which triggers a skill associated with a character’s equipped items as an equipment trigger control);
displaying an equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment (¶11, ¶28, the player is presented with an option to accept or further modify the game character selection information); and
replacing, by the terminal device in response to a trigger operation on the equipment replacement control, the target virtual equipment with corresponding replacement equipment (¶11, ¶28, the player provides an input to further modify the game character selection information which causes the game character to be equipped with the selected equipment).
However, Heller does not specifically disclose:
setting an equipment skill state control of the target virtual equipment, wherein the equipment skill state control is used for displaying a state of the game skill corresponding to the target virtual equipment; or
displaying the equipment replacement control is in response to a preset display trigger event, at a position associated with at least one of the equipment skill trigger control or the equipment skill state control.
Alderman teaches:
a graphical user interface for a video game (¶184-185, Fig. 17, inventory menu 1700), wherein the interface is configured to set an equipment skill state control of target virtual equipment (¶47, Figs. 5A, 5B, the game engine reads in game data and game state information to determine the appropriate in-game events (i.e., the game engine sets visual controls and indicators in response to the current game state, including based on what game equipment the character has currently equipped)), wherein the equipment skill state control is used for displaying a state of the game skill corresponding to the target virtual equipment (¶50, ¶69, Fig. 8, the game tracks and displays the state of game skills (See Fig. 3A, wherein when a character uses a skill there is an associated visual communication action which visually shows the location or effect of the use of the skill), wherein displaying an equipment control is in response to a preset display trigger event (¶30, ¶55, ¶62, ¶120, in response to a user input the system determines the context of the game and selects an actions from a among a plurality of possible actions based on the current context of the game (e.g., when an item is within a predetermined distance from the character the system triggers the display of contextual controls)), and wherein the equipment control is displayed at a position associated with the at least one of the equipment skill trigger control or the equipment skill state control (¶148, ¶166-170, Fig. 14A, the display of the equipment replacement interface 1409 is displayed at position 1401C based on a target location (e.g., determined with reference to the center of the screen) and based on a distance between the item and the player’s character)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the positional display of item controls, as taught by Alderman, to the equipment replacement system of Heller, in order to provide less complex menu navigation, thereby reducing the burden of players to navigate the menus during gameplay (Alderman, ¶29-31)).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 17, Heller discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the displaying the equipment replacement control in response to the preset display trigger event comprises:
determining, in response to the game skill corresponding to the target virtual equipment being in an unavailable state, whether the target virtual equipment satisfies a replacement condition of the replacement equipment corresponding to the target virtual equipment (¶21-22, ¶40, the system compares the personalization selections against information reflecting allowable prisonizations).
However, Heller does not specifically disclose:
displaying, in response to determining that the target virtual equipment satisfies the replacement condition, the equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at the position associated with the at least one of the equipment skill trigger control or the equipment skill state control.
Alderman teaches:
a graphical user interface for a video game (¶184-185, Fig. 17, inventory menu 1700), and displaying, in response to determining that target virtual equipment satisfies a replacement condition (¶55-58, ¶62, ¶105-108, game state condition (i.e., a game entity being within a threshold distance or in a specific state) is the trigger for displaying the contextual controls, (i.e., the system determines if the character is within the threshold distance before displaying it’s associated icon)), the equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at the position associated with the at least one of the equipment skill trigger control or the equipment skill state control (¶50, ¶55-62, Fig. 3A, when the entity is within the threshold distance the system displays the equipment replacement interface at a target location based on a distance between the item and the player’s character).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the positional display of item controls, as taught by Alderman, to the equipment replacement system of Heller, in order to provide less complex menu navigation, thereby reducing the burden of players to navigate the menus during gameplay (Alderman, ¶29-31)).
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 21, Heller discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the replacing, in response to the trigger operation on the equipment replacement control, the target virtual equipment with the corresponding replacement equipment comprises:
displaying, in response to a first trigger operation on the equipment replacement control, the replacement equipment corresponding to the target virtual equipment;
determining, in response to a second trigger operation consecutive to the first trigger operation, that one piece of the valid replacement equipment as target replacement equipment; and
replacing, in response to the second trigger operation terminating action, the target virtual equipment with the target replacement equipment.
Alderman teaches:
a graphical user interface for a video game (¶184-185, Fig. 17, inventory menu 1700), and wherein a first interaction with a button (i.e., a first trigger operation) reveals the contextual communication options (¶55, ¶177-179, Fig. 16, the first contextually aware menu 1600 can be opened via a first input to display options to the player) and a second interaction with the button (i.e., a second trigger operation) which selects the menu option (¶55, ¶177-179, Fig. 16, options displayed in the first contextually aware menu 1600 may be selected by a user through a second user input).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the positional display of item controls, as taught by Alderman, to the equipment replacement system of Heller, in order to provide less complex menu navigation, thereby reducing the burden of players to navigate the menus during gameplay (Alderman, ¶29-31)).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Heller discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the setting the replacement equipment for the part or all of the virtual equipment in the initial equipment scheme comprises:
providing an equipment setting control on the virtual equipment setting interface (¶21-24, the user is provided controls that allow the user to modify the character’s equipment loadout);
selecting selectable equipment in response to a third trigger operation on the selectable equipment (¶21-24, equipment items are selectable through user actions such as clicking or activating user interface elements (i.e., third trigger operation) associated with the equipment options); and
setting, in response to a fourth trigger operation on the equipment setting control, the selectable equipment as the replacement equipment for the part or all of the virtual equipment in the initial equipment scheme (¶40, activating a configuration or assignment control applies the selected equipment to the character (i.e., fourth trigger operation)).
Claim(s) 3-5, 12-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al (U.S. 2013/0331180) in view of Alderman et al (U.S. 2021/0031106) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Ganetakos et al (U.S. 2011/0265041).
Regarding claim 3, 12 and 18, Heller discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
displaying, when determining that the target virtual equipment satisfies the replacement condition, the equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at the position associated with the equipment skill trigger control and/or the equipment skill state control comprises:
determining game resource data of the target virtual equipment and replacement resource data of the replacement equipment corresponding to the target virtual equipment, and obtaining remaining resource data;
obtaining consumable resource data by performing a resource calculation on the game resource data and the remaining resource data; and
if the consumable resource data is greater than or equal to the replacement resource data, determining that the target virtual equipment satisfies the replacement condition, and displaying the equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at the position associated with the equipment skill trigger control and/or the equipment skill state control.
Ganetakos teaches:
a user interface used to provide a virtual world with which a user can interact, including a radial menu for interacting with characters in the virtual world (¶4), the user interface includes an in-game personal management tool, including in-game equipment storage (¶32, ¶37, portrait tool 210 which is the main hub for the player’s in-game management tools, including the player’s “Backpack” which holds the user’s items which are used during gameplay and the “My Items” button which toggles visibility for the backpack user interface screen when selected), wherein the user interface further includes display of the player’s available resource values (¶105-110, Fig. 22-25, virtual currencies (e.g., in-game cash 2215, village fund 2220, eStore points 2225), wherein items in the virtual world have associated costs and are purchasable by the player, if the player has sufficient resources (¶28, ¶68, the user may earn virtual cash to use to purchase or trade for items to use in the game (i.e., the system must compare the user’s available virtual currencies to the cost of the item to be purchased to determine if the user has sufficient virtual currency to complete the purchase).
Alderman teaches:
a graphical user interface for a video game (¶184-185, Fig. 17, inventory menu 1700), and
displaying, the equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at the positions associated with the equipment skill trigger control and/or the equipment skill state control (¶50, ¶55-62, Fig. 3A, when the entity is within the threshold distance the system displays the equipment replacement interface at a target location based on a distance between the item and the player’s character).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate Ganetakos’s resource-based item availability logic to Heller’s equipment-replacement system in order to control availability of replacement equipment based on a player’s available resources and further integrate with Alderman’s contextual UI display logic, thus resulting in a system which display the equipment replacement control at the positions associated with the equipment skill trigger control and/or equipment skill state control when the replacement condition is met, thereby provide player’s with more relevant equipment replacement controls, based on available resources, thus leading to less complex menu navigation and reducing the burden of players to navigate the menus during gameplay (Alderman, ¶29-31)).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, Heller discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
determining whether the target virtual equipment satisfies the replacement condition comprises:
determining game resource data of the target virtual equipment and replacement resource data of the replacement equipment corresponding to the target virtual equipment, and obtaining remaining resource data;
obtaining consumable resource data by performing a resource calculation on the game resource data and the remaining resource data; and
determining, in response to a value of the consumable resource data being less than a value of the replacement resource data, that the target virtual equipment does not satisfy the replacement condition; and
the method further comprises:
displaying, in response to determining that the target virtual equipment does not satisfy the replacement condition, the replacement equipment corresponding to the target virtual equipment in grey.
Ganetakos teaches:
a user interface used to provide a virtual world with which a user can interact, including a radial menu for interacting with characters in the virtual world (¶4), the user interface includes an in-game personal management tool, including in-game equipment storage (¶32, ¶37, portrait tool 210 which is the main hub for the player’s in-game management tools, including the player’s “Backpack” which holds the user’s items which are used during gameplay and the “My Items” button which toggles visibility for the backpack user interface screen when selected), wherein the user interface distinguishes between valid and invalid actions based on resource sufficiency (¶109-110, Fig. 22-25, resource fields (e.g., in-game cash 2215, village fund 2220, eStore points 2225) determine whether an item can be purchased or used, elements which are unavailable, such as unpurchased inventory slots are greyed out).
Alderman teaches:
a graphical user interface for a video game (¶184-185, Fig. 17, inventory menu 1700), and
displaying, the equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at the positions associated with the equipment skill trigger control and/or the equipment skill state control (¶50, ¶55-62, Fig. 3A, when the entity is within the threshold distance the system displays the equipment replacement interface at a target location based on a distance between the item and the player’s character).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate Ganetakos’s resource-based item availability display logic to Heller’s equipment-replacement system in order to control display availability of replacement equipment based on a player’s available resources and further integrate with Alderman’s contextual UI display logic, thus resulting in a system which display the equipment replacement control at the positions associated with the equipment skill trigger control and/or equipment skill state control when the replacement condition is met, thereby provide player’s with more relevant equipment replacement controls, based on available resources, thus leading to less complex menu navigation and reducing the burden of players to navigate the menus during gameplay (Alderman, ¶29-31)).
Regarding claims 5, 20 and 14, Heller discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose:
determining, in response to the target virtual equipment corresponding to a plurality of replacement equipment, valid replacement equipment and invalid replacement equipment from the plurality of replacement equipment;
displaying the valid replacement equipment differentially, and displaying the invalid replacement equipment in grey; and
determining a target position of the valid replacement equipment to be the position associated with the at least one of the equipment skill trigger control or the equipment skill state control, and displaying the equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at the target position.
Ganetakos teaches:
a user interface used to provide a virtual world with which a user can interact, including a radial menu for interacting with characters in the virtual world (¶4), the user interface includes an in-game personal management tool, including in-game equipment storage (¶32, ¶37, portrait tool 210 which is the main hub for the player’s in-game management tools, including the player’s “Backpack” which holds the user’s items which are used during gameplay and the “My Items” button which toggles visibility for the backpack user interface screen when selected), wherein the user interface displays actions differently based on whether they are valid or invalid actions based on resource sufficiency (¶109-110, Fig. 22-25, resource fields (e.g., in-game cash 2215, village fund 2220, eStore points 2225) determine whether an item can be purchased or used, elements which are unavailable, such as unpurchased inventory slots are greyed out).
Alderman teaches:
a graphical user interface for a video game (¶184-185, Fig. 17, inventory menu 1700), and
displaying, the equipment replacement control of the target virtual equipment at the positions associated with the equipment skill trigger control and/or the equipment skill state control (¶50, ¶55-62, Fig. 3A, when the entity is within the threshold distance the system displays the equipment replacement interface at a target location based on a distance between the item and the player’s character).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate Ganetakos’s resource-based item availability display logic to Heller’s equipment-replacement system in order to control display availability of replacement equipment based on a player’s available resources and further integrate with Alderman’s contextual UI display logic, thus resulting in a system which display the equipment replacement control at the positions associated with the equipment skill trigger control and/or equipment skill state control when the replacement condition is met, thereby provide player’s with more relevant equipment replacement controls, based on available resources, thus leading to less complex menu navigation and reducing the burden of players to navigate the menus during gameplay (Alderman, ¶29-31)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. Specifically, applicant argues that “the steps of displaying a replacement control…, triggering such display in response to a preset display trigger event, and replacing equipment through a trigger operation…”, are “machine-implemented operations that cannot be performed in the human mind and require a programmed computing device operating in real time” (See Remarks, pgs. 13-14). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Initially, applicant mischaracterizes the previous Office Action. The Office Action did not identify the graphical display steps or the triggering mechanisms as Mental Processes, rather, only the underlying action of replacing equipment was categorized under Mental Processes (and also Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), while the remaining display and interface steps were treated as conventional computer implementation and extra solution activity (See Non-Final Rejection, mailed 04/07/2026, pgs. 3-4, 6). Furthermore, to the extent applicant traverses the Mental Processes grouping, the rejection has been clarified to rely primarily on the judicial exception grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, a claim need only fall within at least one enumerated grouping to recite an abstract idea. The instant claims set forth rules, conditions, and sequences governing the play of a game, which the Federal Circuit has consistently held to be an abstract idea regardless of whether the steps are performed mentally or executed via a computer system (See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, whether the display and trigger operations can be performed in the human mind is immaterial to claim limitations which fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping.
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. Specifically, applicant argues that “the claims are not directed to “rules for conducting a game” or “mere organizational rules” (See Remarks, pgs. 13-14). The examiner must respectfully disagree. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity includes “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules and/or instructions”. The Courts have repeatedly established that rules, instructions, and procedures for playing a game fall squarely within this category (See In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The instant claims recite a sequence of conditions, options, and outcomes that device how a virtual character is configured and equipped with the mechanics: setting an initial equipment scheme and defining replacement equipment for a character, configuring the character with target equipment using a shortcut control, setting skill controls corresponding to the target equipment, and replacing the target equipment with replacement equipment upon a trigger event. These steps clearly define the rules, logic, and procedures for character equipment management within a game. Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed to rules, but rather are directed to “specific technical improvements to a graphical user interface…” (See Remarks, pg. 14). Here applicant is conflating the Step 2A, Prong 1 inquiry with the Step 2A, Prong 2 inquiry. Step 2A, Prong 1 inquiry asks whether the claims recite an abstract concept (here, game rules/instructions). Whether an abstract idea is automated, implemented in software, or executed on a computing device does not negate the presence of the abstract idea itself. Whether the claims provide “specific technical improvements to a graphical user interface…” is properly evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 (i.e., inventive concept).
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, provide a “concrete technical solution to a problem specific to video game interfaces, namely, how to enable players to quickly replace equipment during active gameplay without navigating through complex menus…the claimed invention reduces the time and cognitive burden required for equipment replacement thereby improving the efficiency of human-computer interaction” (See Remarks, pgs. 14-15). The examiner must respectfully disagree. An improvement in the function of a computer or other technology is indicative of integration into a practical application. However, to demonstrate such an improvement, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the operational functioning of the computer or display device itself, rather than an improvement in user experience or an abstract method that merely uses the computer as a tool (See MPEP 2106.05(a), (f)). Applicant’s reliance on Data Engine Technologies v. Google LLC is misplaced. In Data Engine, the eligible claims recited a specific interface element that solved a recognized architectural navigation limitation inherent to complex, multi-page computer spreadsheets, providing a technical structure for navigating between electronic sheets with requiring excessive computational resources. In contrast, the instant claims merely recite conventional graphical user interface elements, performing their standard, generic functions of displaying information, tracking status, and responding to user inputs. The claims do not recite any specific graphical architecture, display processing, data structures, or modifications to how the system manages the display rendering. Furthermore, the problem and solutions applicant identified (i.e., how to enable players to quickly replace equipment during active gameplay without navigating through complex menus), are directed entirely at player performance, user convenience, and game play mechanics, they are not problems or solutions to problems arising from the computer itself.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Heller does not teach performing all operations on the terminal device that executes the game, but rather, Heller teaches that the configuration is performed on a separate device from the game console (See Remarks, pgs. 16-17). The examiner must respectfully disagree. While Heller describes distrusted equipping via a companion device in certain embodiments, Heller also expressly discloses that the local game console is itself a compute device configured to execute program instructions to provide for gameplay, display of game play events, receive player inputs via a game controller, and modify character attributes and equipment (See Heller, ¶19, ¶21, ¶42-45, Fig. 1, Fig. 5, “ In some embodiments, for example a smartphone, laptop, or other personal computer may be a compute device configured for game play”, “…using the smartphone and personalization of game character equipment as an example, the smartphone executes an application displaying options for equipping a game character. receives equipment selections, and transmits the equipment selections to the server…”).
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
