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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/3/24 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 17/553784, filed 12/16/21, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/3/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is recommended to amend the phrase from "The method" to "The virtual prop control method", "The apparatus" to "The virtual prop control apparatus", and "The storage media" to "The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderman et al. (2021/0031106) in view of Wei (2019/0126148) and Garvin et al. (2016/0287990).
Re Claim 1,
Alderman discloses a virtual prop control method, performed by an electronic device (Fig 1, ¶¶0035-0038, 0043-0044), the method comprising:
displaying a target virtual operation object in a virtual shooting game (Fig 5A, ¶¶0094, 0099, 0113; a first-person perspective of a virtual 3D environment in the game as displayed to the player);
detecting whether an aiming ray is in contact with an adhesion box of at least one non-target virtual operation object in response to a user input, the aiming ray representing a direction aimed by the crosshair (¶¶0094-0095, 0100-0101, 0113-0114; a player can move the in-game character within the game as the player focuses on different targets within the game, wherein a trace or projectile can be created from the starting point through the virtual environment, further, the system determines certain types of units whose hitboxes, i.e., an adhesion box, overlap a target location that the player is focusing on); and
determining a second virtual operation object closest to the aiming direction among the plurality of non-target virtual operation objects as an adhesion target (¶¶0094-0095, 0100-0101, 0108-0109, 0113-0114, 0116; one or more tiebreakers such as the threshold distance closest to the player is used in determining which virtual unit is selected).
Alderman is silent on displaying a crosshair and a movement of the crosshair and the aiming is in contact with a plurality of non-target virtual operation objects simultaneously.
However, Wei teaches displaying a crosshair and a movement of the crosshair (Fig 3, ¶¶0022-0024, 0043; in a shooting game, a virtual character may be presented as holding a gun with a telescopic sight model corresponding to the aiming area). Wei further teaches such a configuration brings a richer game experience to the player (¶0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wei into the shooting game of Alderman in order to bring a richer game experience to the player.
Garvin teaches detecting a player’s aiming in contact with a plurality of non-target virtual operation objects simultaneously and selecting a target based on a distance calculation (Fig 3, ¶¶0039, 0041-0042). Garvin further teaches such a configuration enriches the video game experience to allow players to efficiently and intelligently target and attack enemies or direct actions to game objects (¶0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Garvin into the shooting game of Alderman in order to enrich the video game experience to allow players to efficiently and intelligently target and attack enemies or direct actions to game objects.
Re Claims 2, 9, 16,
Alderman discloses an aiming point aimed and at least two of the plurality of non-target virtual operation objects in contact with the aiming ray are located at different planes (¶¶0094, 0105, 0114-0117).
Re Claims 3, 10, 17,
Alderman discloses in response to determining the second virtual operation object as the adhesion target, rotating the aiming ray in a direction of the second virtual operation object (¶¶0114-0117).
Re Claims 4, 11, 18,
Alderman discloses the input operation comprises at least one operation of a moving operation, a shooting operation, or a rotation operation (¶¶0114-0117).
Re Claims 6, 13, 20,
Alderman discloses configuring a corresponding adhesion box for each virtual operation object participating in the virtual shooting game, the adhesion box of each virtual operation object being a collision detection region in a predetermined shape (¶¶0094-0095) but does not explicitly disclose movement of the corresponding virtual operation object. However, Wei teaches movement of the corresponding virtual operation object (Fig 3, ¶¶0022-0024, 0043). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 7, 14,
Alderman discloses obtaining a fire trajectory of a virtual bullet fired by the target virtual operation object at the adhesion target; and determining that the virtual bullet hits the adhesion target in response to that the fire trajectory is not in contact with the adhesion target and that a distance between the fire trajectory and the adhesion target is less than a predetermined threshold (¶¶0100-0102, 0114-0117, 0127-0128, 0130-0134).
Re Claims 8, 15,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715