DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office actin is in response to amendments filed on 05/12/2026.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental steps without significantly more. As per step 1 examiner recognizes the claims are directed towards electronic devices or methods using electronic devices performing computer steps such as displaying of virtual objects. Therefore step 1 is met. As per step 2A the claim(s) recite(s) “displaying a virtual object and a virtual natural element representing a virtual natural phenomenon in a virtual scene, wherein the virtual natural element is initially stationary at a first predefined position and the virtual object is in an interactive state in the virtual scene; transforming the virtual natural element into an interactive target object when the virtual object enters into a negative impact region surrounding the virtual natural element at the first predefined position, further including: simultaneously removing the virtual natural element from the virtual scene using a transparent mask from bottom to top of the virtual natural element and bringing the target object into the virtual scene at the first predefined position from the top to the bottom; controlling the virtual object to interact with the target object in the virtual scene when an interaction instruction for the target object is received; in response to a hiding instruction for the virtual object, transforming the virtual object from the interactive state to a hidden state, the virtual object the hidden state being invisible to the target object; and dynamically transforming the target object back into the virtual natural element at a second predefined position in the virtual scene when the target object does not find the virtual object in the hidden state within a target duration, further including: simultaneously removing the target object from the virtual scene using the transparent mask from the bottom to the top of the target object and bringing the virtual natural element back into the virtual scene at the second predefined position from the top to the bottom.” As being directed towards a game comprising the step of determining when a player object enters a negative impact region of a natural element and transforming the natural element into an interactive target object for interaction with the player object including how the animation occurs such as removing the virtual natural element using a transparent mask and conditions for a hidden or unhidden state. Further dependent claims defines rules such as negative effects of the impact region, clearing of the impact region upon enemy defeat, searching, and other rules related to the game. Examiner recognizes the highlighted section is a rule for a game wherein a game operator determines when a player is within a certain region of the game in order to trigger an effect. Specifically it is a mental step that would allow a game operator to determine that a player is within a storm and then transforming the storm into a character that can be fought for the purpose of clearing the storm. See for example cited prior art Monster Hunter below which shows a similar mental step function wherein an enemy character generates a storm which blocks progress and upon defeat by a player the storm is cleared. This is a rule for how to play a game which can be performed mentally. For example it is well-known that RPG games can be played by individuals using paper and pencil such as famous RPG systems such as Dungeon and Dragons or Pathfinder. An individual in those system is able to imagine the world including weather effects on the world and therefore would be able to mentally apply the rule to fight enemy characters in order to clear storms. This would also go towards such human concepts as past societies believing that thunder storms were caused by entities such as gods or demons and therefore the personification of a storm would predate the use of computers as well. Therefore the invention is directed towards a rule for a game which can be performed as a mental function. As per the computer elements see below. Amended claim language further discloses more animations which are addressed in step 2B and in response to language, bolded above, regarding hidden and unhidden states which further reads on mental steps regarding observation and applying rules to govern how objects act in a game. Examiner further recognizes that controlling of objects, such as player characters, is a known mental step and is not specific to electronic gaming such as known systems like dungeons and dragons. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims remain directed towards rules for a game which are mental steps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed towards the playing of a game and do not include a practical application such as an improvement in the function of a machine or other recognized practical improvement. New rules for how to play a game goes towards themes for a game and are not of themselves a practical improvement. Additionally the action of making a game more entertaining or appealing is a subjective feature and goes towards the fundamental purpose of gaming and therefore does not provide a practical improvement.
As per step 2B examiner recognizes that limitation “interaction method of controlling a virtual object in a virtual scene performed by an electronic device” and other display steps are directed towards the conventional feature of electronic video games. See Yoshimura (US Pub. No. 2009/0262112 A1) shows at paragraph [0010] that it is conventional to include a virtual game environment for a game comprising a virtual camera which is adjusted to change the focus of the view on an virtual object. Specifically is well-known and conventional for electronic video games to display and control virtual objects including the virtual objects to interact with each other. Therefore the steps of displaying and controlling of virtual objects is conventional to the art and do not provide significantly more. Regarding the specific animation and displays used these read on extra solution activity using conventional features of outputting a state of the game, such as a virtual character in a virtual environment, and therefore does not represent significantly more to overcome step 2B. Specifically an animation is conventional with the type of animation being a theme to show the state of the game and therefore extra solution activity. See for example the article “Attack Its Weak Point“ which discusses visual features, such as “a shiny or glowing target anywhere on the boss villain's body, chances are that's where you need to attack”, showing that visually indicating vulnerability is a known animation features. The animation used in the current application communicates the state of the game without using unconventional hardware or display techniques since the action of changing the appearance of a character, like transforming or fading away, are known and conventional features in the art. Further animating states of an enemy, such as vulnerability, are known features in the gaming art. Therefore this would not be a unconventional machine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim language overcomes the previous 101 rejection. See above modified rejection which addresses additional language. Applicant further argues a practical application regarding the use of specific animations, including the two phase animation, as better communicating information to a player regarding advantage and disadvantage. Examiner respectfully disagrees since the action of advantage and disadvantage read on rules for a game regarding when a enemy character is vulnerable and not vulnerable which are actions related to the play of a game and therefore rules for how to play the game. Examiner recognizes the actions of weakness for a character are steps that can be performed mentally by a player while playing a game and can be done on table top without a computer involved. Therefore the question is whether or not applying the indication to animation would overcome the rejection under step 2B. See cited prior art in step 2B which shows that animating a vulnerability is a conventional feature and therefore the action of communicating this information is conventional to the art. Therefor specific animation used goes towards extra solution activity as a particular theme for applying a conventional feature. Examiner therefore maintains the current 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohtani et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0031113 A1) teaches "a background color of the face image may be revealed at a timing different from that of the face image. That is, at least a part of the attribute of the enemy character may be hidden and gradually revealed." (paragraph [0128]).
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 JUSTIN L MYHR whose telephone number is (571)270-7847. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights