Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to Applicant’s communication filed on 02/26/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is summarized as follows:
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998), In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993), In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985), In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982), In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970), and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of US 11,980,817 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims are anticipated by the reference claim(s). To wit, claims 1-24 of the examined application and claims 1-22 of the reference patent recite virtually identical subject matter, with the exception of the omission of the word “movable” from the limitation “second virtual object” in examined claim 1, as shown below:
a role conversion method, performed by a computer device, the method comprising: displaying a virtual environment, a first movable virtual object and a second virtual object to the target virtual object, the role attribute comprises a skill attribute.at least one of the symbol sides of a plurality of the multiple dimension symbols generated at a plurality of the symbol display positions are not initially displayed at said symbol display positions
wherein the first virtual object is a role whose attack capability is to be strengthened,
the first virtual object and the second virtual object belong to character types of different camps, and the method further comprises: selecting a second virtual object with a strengthened attack capability from at least two second virtual objects, and the obtaining the role conversion instruction for the first virtual object comprises: obtaining a role conversion instruction for the first virtual object in response to the first virtual object catching the second virtual object with the strengthened attack capability or a distance between the second virtual object with the strengthened attack capability and the first virtual object being less than a preset distance
wherein before the displaying the virtual environment, the method further comprises: displaying a role selection page, at least two candidate roles being displayed in the role selection page, receiving a selection instruction input, selecting, according to the selection instruction input, the role whose attack capability is to be strengthened from the candidate roles, and using the role whose attack capability is to be strengthened as the first virtual object displayed in the virtual environment
wherein the first virtual object and the second virtual object belong to character types of different camps, and the method further comprises: obtaining, in response to receiving an attack instruction, a skill value corresponding to the attack instruction and belonging to the assigned skill attribute, and controlling the target virtual object to use the skill value to attack the second virtual object
wherein after the controlling the target virtual object to use the skill value to attack the second virtual object, the method further comprises: in response to a health point of the second virtual object reaching a restoration condition or receiving a role restoration instruction, performing role conversion on the target virtual object to restore the target virtual object to the first virtual object
wherein before the performing role conversion on the target virtual object, the method further comprises: canceling the skill attribute assigned to the target virtual object and consistent with that of the second virtual object, and after the performing role conversion on the target virtual object, the method further comprises: assigning an originally possessed skill attribute to the restored first virtual object
wherein the performing role conversion on the target virtual object to restore the target virtual object to the first virtual object comprises: obtaining skeleton data and corresponding costume data of the first virtual object, generating the first virtual object according to the skeleton data and the costume data of the first virtual object, and replacing the target virtual object with the first virtual object in the virtual environment
wherein before the obtaining the role conversion instruction for the first virtual object, the method further comprises: marking the second virtual object caught by the first virtual object or within a preset distance range, and the converting the first virtual object to the target virtual object comprises: converting the first virtual object to the target virtual object having the same role as the second virtual object in response to the health point of the marked second virtual object reaching a conversion condition
displaying, in response to the health point of the marked second virtual object failing to reach the conversion condition, prompt information indicating that the role conversion fails at a picture level of the virtual environment, and controlling the first virtual object to vibrate
wherein the role attribute comprises a skill attribute, the first virtual object and the second virtual object belong to character types of different camps, and the method further comprises: determining skill attributes possessed by the second virtual objects, and selecting, according to the skill attributes, a second virtual object restraining other second virtual objects from the second virtual objects, and the converting the first virtual object to the target virtual object comprises: converting the first virtual object using the selected second virtual object as a target role, to obtain the target virtual object
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardisty et al (US 2006/0287027 A1).in view of Galaga Walkthrough (as evidenced by Galaga_Walkthrough.pdf) (“GW”).
Regarding claim 1, Hardisty discloses a role conversion method performed by a computer device (Abstract), the method comprising displaying a virtual environment (¶ [0003]: third person shooting game), a first movable virtual object (Fig. 2A: Civilians) and a second virtual object being simultaneously displayed in the virtual environment (Fig. 2A: Zombies), obtaining a role conversion instruction for the first virtual object (¶ [0034]: command causes the Zombies to seek out the nearest uninfected humans and kill them) and converting the first virtual object to a target virtual object having a same role as the second virtual object in response to the role conversion instruction (¶ [0034]: immediately after, the victims will get back up as mindlessly loyal undead servants of the Enslaver). GW suggests—where Hardisty does not disclose— wherein the target virtual object is restorable to the first virtual object (p. 2: if you succeed in destroying the Boss Galaga, a marvelous thing happens … your Fighter is freed and it joins your currently playing Fighter). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Hardisty and GW in order to make the game more strategic and fun.
Regarding claim 2, Hardisty discloses assigning a role attribute the same as that of the second virtual object to the target virtual object (¶ [0034]: when Zombie units are created and mutated, they are assigned to Zombie Unit Types), the role attribute comprises a skill attribute (¶ [0033]: hard-to-kill but slow Shamblers, fast but vulnerable Runners, wide-spread infection capabilities of the Bloaters, pack-hunting abilities of the Shredders or the sheer brute strength of the Monster).
Regarding claim 3, Hardisty discloses wherein the first virtual object and the second virtual object belong to character types of different camps (Fig. 2A: Civilians and Zombies), and the obtaining the role conversion instruction for the first virtual object comprises obtaining the role conversion instruction for the first virtual object in response to the first virtual object catching the second virtual object or a distance between the second virtual object and the first virtual object being less than a preset distance (¶ [0034]: command causes the Zombies to seek out the nearest uninfected humans and kill them).
Regarding claim 6, Hardisty discloses wherein the first virtual object and the second virtual object belong to character types of different camps (Fig. 2A: Civilians and Zombies), and the method further comprises: obtaining, in response to receiving an attack instruction, a skill value corresponding to the attack instruction and belonging to the assigned skill attribute, and controlling the target virtual object to use the skill value to attack the second virtual object (¶¶ [0049] – [0050]: select certain type of Zombie with particular skill set to perform attack).
Regarding claim 22, Hardisty discloses displaying a skill attribute of the target virtual object to replace a skill attribute of the first virtual object in the virtual environment (¶ [0033]: hard-to-kill but slow Shamblers, fast but vulnerable Runners, wide-spread infection capabilities of the Bloaters, pack-hunting abilities of the Shredders or the sheer brute strength of the Monster).
Regarding claim 23, Hardisty discloses wherein the target virtual object maintains a role attribute originally possessed by the first virtual object (¶ [0035]: some civilians are fighters).
Claim 24 recites an apparatus comprising substantially the same limitations as those in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claim 24, Hardisty discloses a role conversion apparatus (Abstract) comprising a memory operable to store computer-readable instructions, a processor circuitry operable to read the computer-readable instructions, the processor circuitry executing the computer-readable instructions (¶ [0015]: Xbox® and PlayStation®).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 7-21 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 if appropriate action is taken to overcome the rejections under the nonstatutory double-patenting doctrine set forth in this office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights