Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 12, 16 and 17 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “marking, based on a hittable virtual object being in the effective range of the target operation, the hittable virtual object being in a map display window, the map display window displaying a map of the virtual environment.”
The limitations of “displaying a virtual environment; obtaining, while displaying the virtual environment, an input of a user to control a first virtual object to perform a target operation; displaying an indication graph of the target operation in response to obtaining the input of the user, the indication graph indicating an effective range of the target operation; and marking, based on a hittable virtual object being in the effective range of the target operation, the hittable virtual object in a map display window, the map display window displaying a map of the virtual environment” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more processors” language, “displaying and marking” in the context of this claim encompasses marking, based on a hittable virtual object being in the effective range of the target operation, the hittable virtual object being in a map display window, the map display window displaying a map of the virtual environment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1, 12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ge Jin (CN109248439 B).
Ge Jin (CN109248439 B) was cited in the form 1449 received on 04/22/24.
As per claim 1, Jin discloses a method of controlling a display, the method comprising: displaying a virtual environment (see fig. 1); obtaining, while displaying the virtual environment, an input of a user to control a first virtual object to perform a target operation ([0031], see figs. 2 & 3); displaying an indication graph of the target operation in response to obtaining the input of the user, the indication graph indicating an effective range of the target operation ([0028]-[0029], see fig. 3); and marking, based on a hittable virtual object being in the effective range of the target operation, the hittable virtual object being in a map display window, the map display window displaying a map of the virtual environment ([0028], see fig. 3).
As per claim 12, Jin discloses a display apparatus, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store computer program code (see fig. 1); and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and operate according to the computer program code, the computer program code comprising: a first display code configured to cause the at least one processor to display a virtual environment; obtaining code configured to cause the at least one processor to obtain, while the virtual environment is displayed, an input of a user to control a first virtual object to perform a target operation ([0031], see figs. 2 & 3); a second display code configured to cause the at least one processor to display an indication graph of the target operation in response to the input of the user, the indication graph indicating an effective range of the target operation ([0028]-[0029], see fig. 3); and a marking code configured to cause the at least one processor to mark, based on a hittable virtual object being in the effective range of the target operation, the hittable virtual object being in a map display window, the map display window displaying a map of the virtual environment ([0028], see fig. 3).
As per claim 16, Jin discloses a terminal comprising a display apparatus, at least one processor, and a memory, the memory (see fig. 1) storing at least one instruction, at least one program, a code set, or an instruction set, the at least one instruction, the at least one program, the code set, or the instruction set being loaded and executed by the at least one processor to implement the method according to claim 1 ([0028-[0029], [0031], see figs. 2 & 3).
As per claim 17, Jin discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor of a display apparatus to: display a virtual environment (see fig. 1); obtain, while the virtual environment is displayed, an input of a user to control a first virtual object to perform a target operation ([0031], see figs. 2 & 3); display an indication graph of the target operation in response to the input of the user, the indication graph indicating an effective range of the target operation ([0028]-[0029], see fig. 3); and mark, based on a hittable virtual object being in the effective range of the target operation, the hittable virtual object being in a map display window, the map display window displaying a map of the virtual environment ([0028], see fig. 3).
6. No art rejection is found for claims 2-11, 13-15 and 18-20.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 6-4:30 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, David L Lewis can be reached on 5712727673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715