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 Interpretation
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111. The terms “virtual object,” “game skill control element,” “object image,” and “game interface” are construed in light of paragraphs [0005] – [0013] and [0027] – [0034] of the published specification. The “control region of the second virtual object in a game interface” is interpreted as a designated region of a graphical user interface assigned to the second virtual object (e.g., a HUD skill bar), as illustrated by skill display region 204 in FIG. 2 and the disclosure at paragraphs [0028] – [0030].
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 recites “end time,.”, the end of the claim should end with a “.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a unavailable state” in lines 2 and 5. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 20 are all within at least one of the four categories of invention, and have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1 – 20 recites at least one step or instruction for rules and steps for managing how characters interact in a game, which is grouped as a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve concepts performed in the human mind, namely observation, evaluation and judgement, which are mental processes and managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, which are methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 20 recites an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A game processing method, comprising:
receiving a request from a user of a second virtual object to perform an object copy function on a first virtual object;
displaying, by processing circuitry, a first game skill control element in a control region of the second virtual object in a game interface based on the request, the first game skill control element being associated with a first game skill of the first virtual object;
switching a display of the second virtual object in the game interface from a second object image of the second virtual object to a first object image of the first virtual object based on the request; and
controlling the second virtual object to perform the first game skill based on a user interaction with the first game skill control element in the control region of the second virtual object in the game interface.
Accordingly, as indicated above in bold, the above-identified claim recites an abstract
idea, as well as claim 19 (apparatus) and claim 20 (non-transitory compute readable storage medium). Further, dependent Claims 2 – 17 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (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.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 19 and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 - 18) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 19 and 20), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of interface and a display as recited in independent Claims 1, 19 and 20 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements 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.
Furthermore, game interface and the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer/computing device. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 19 and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 - 18) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract
idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g.
interface and a display as recited in independent claims 1, 19 and 20). 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/computing device.
Additionally, 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. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 19 and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims 2 - 18) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the Claims 1 - 20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: interface and a display as recited in the independent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components
which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic
functions of automating mental tasks. 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.
Like SAP America vs InvestPic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 20 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) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing
technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a
technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification
for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or
upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide
sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention
as providing an improvement. Here, 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. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d
1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide
sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any
technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1- 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 - 20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements
do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified
additional elements in independent Claims 1, 19 and 20 (and their dependent claims) do not add
significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other
additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional
elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these
above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed
functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of
generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept
sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the
above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful
limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea
such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a
technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1 – 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 20 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 2019 PEG.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 11, 14, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0347244 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0274020 A1).
As per claim 1, Chen et al. discloses a game processing method, comprising: receiving a request from a user of a virtual object to perform an object copy function on a virtual object (receiving a casting instruction for a copy skill corresponding to a virtual object in a virtual scene, including presenting a skill control corresponding to the copy skill and receiving the casting instruction in response to a trigger operation on the skill control, see Fig. 4 and [0070] – [0078]); displaying, by processing circuitry, a first game skill control element in a control region of the virtual object in a game interface based on the request, the first game skill control
element being associated with a first game skill (presenting a skill control corresponding to the copy skill on the human-computer interaction interface, and switching the skill control between cool-down and active states, see Fig. 5 and [0079] – [0088]); switching a display of the virtual object in the game interface from a second object image of the virtual object to another object image of the virtual object based on the request (in response to the casting instruction, presenting a virtual object copy obtained by copying the virtual object, and concurrently hiding the presented virtual object, switching the displayed image associated with the player from a first state to a copy state, se Fig. 7 – 9 and [0095] – [0099]); and controlling the virtual object to perform the first game skill based on a user interaction with the first game skill control element in the control region of the virtual object in the game interface (controlling, in response to an interaction control instruction, the virtual object copy to perform the interactive operation indicated by the instruction, where the operation includes casting skills, see Fig. 4 and [0101] – [0114]).
Chen does not expressly disclose the “first virtual object” being copied is a different virtual object than the “second virtual object” performing the copying. Chen describes a “copy skill” in which a virtual object copies itself (i.e., produces a clone of the controlled character that takes the same appearance and abilities).
Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0274020 A1) teaches a method for switching game character, wherein receiving, when a first character is on a game interface of a game process, a character switching instruction on a game interface that displays a first character; acquiring character data corresponding to a second character according to the character switching instruction; and switching the first character to the second character on the game interface according to the character data (see Abstract, Fig. 1 - 4 and [0055] – [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the copy mechanism of Chen with the cross-character switching of Xu et al. in order to expand gameplay mechanism that permits a player-character to take on the visual identity and skill set of another character in the game.
As per claim 2, Chen discloses the first game skill and the first object image of the first virtual object is copied from a third virtual object (See [0131] – [0135]).
As per claim 3, Chen does not expressly disclose the displaying the first game skill control element comprises: displaying at least one candidate virtual object that is in a same game camp as the second virtual object when the request to perform the object copy function is received; receiving a selection of the first virtual object from the at least one candidate virtual
object; and displaying, when the first virtual object is selected from the candidate virtual objects,
the first game skill control element in the control region of the second virtual object in the game
interface.
Xu et al. teaches presenting a candidate set of target characters for selection prior to switching and selecting from that set via a target control icon (see [0040] – [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the candidate-list selection technique of Xu et al. into the system of Chen in order to give the user explicit control over which character is copied.
As per claim 4, Chen discloses the displaying the first game skill control element comprises: displaying at least one candidate function that is permitted to be performed by the second virtual object on the first virtual object; and displaying, when the object copy function is selected from the candidate functions, the first game skill control element in the control region of the second virtual object in the game interface (see [0080] – [0085]).
As per claim 11, Chen discloses displaying the object copy function with the second virtual object in the game interface when the second virtual object satisfies a function obtaining condition (see Fig. 6 and [0083] – [0090]).
As per claim 14, Chen et al. discloses storing the first game skill in a copy skill storage space; and reading the first game skill from the copy skill storage space associated with the second virtual object (see [0107] – [0114]).
As per claim 16, Chen et al. discloses when the second virtual object is in a copy state, deleting a game skill stored in the copy skill storage space of the second virtual object, and deleting copy associated data of the second virtual object (canceling presentation of the virtual object copy and cleaning up associated state when a disappearing condition is satisfied, which encompasses deletion of stored copy data, see [0119] – [0127]).
As per claim 19, the instant claim is an apparatus in which corresponds to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
As per claim 20, the instant claim is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in which corresponds to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 5 – 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights