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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 13, 2024 and August 25, 2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a virtual world-based capture information display method” (i.e. “a process”); claim 10 is directed to is directed to “a virtual world-based capture information display apparatus” (i.e. “a machine”); and claim 19 is directed to is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “a virtual world,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“displaying a pet virtual character located in a virtual world;
displaying capture prompt information of the pet virtual character; and
displaying successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the capture prompt information indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state and a capture operation of a master virtual character on the pet virtual character,
wherein the capture prompt information indicates status information for capturing the pet virtual character, and
wherein the capturable state indicates a capture success rate of the pet virtual character reaching at least one of a target probability or a target probability range.”
Per claim 10:
“capture prompt code configured to display capture prompt information of a pet virtual character in a virtual world; and
capture success code configured to display successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the capture prompt information indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state and a capture operation of a master virtual character on the pet virtual character,
wherein the capture prompt information is configured for indicating status information related to capturing the pet virtual character, and
wherein the capturable state is configured for indicating a capture success rate of the pet virtual character reaching at least one of a target probability or a target probability range.”
Per claim 19:
“display capture prompt information of a pet virtual character in a virtual world; and
display successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the capture prompt information indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state and a capture operation of a master virtual character on the pet virtual character,
wherein the capture prompt information is configured for indicating status information related to capturing the pet virtual character, and
wherein the capturable state is configured for indicating a capture success rate of the pet virtual character reaching at least one of a target probability or a target probability range.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “rules are abstract ideas” (i.e. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and “a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, [without] any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.” (i.e. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “at least one memory” and “at least one processor” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “a virtual world,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “at least one memory” and “at least one processor” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one memory,” is described the written description of the specification as originally filed in para. [0254] as follows:
“[0254] The memory 1802 may include one or more computer-readable storage media. The computer-readable storage medium may be tangible and non-transitory. The memory 1802 may further include a high-speed random access memory and a non-volatile memory, for example, one or more disk storage devices and flash storage devices. In some embodiments, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in the memory 1802 may be configured to store at least one instruction, and the at least one instruction being configured to be executed by the processor 1801 to implement a virtual world-based capture information display method,”
As such, “at least one memory,” is reasonably interpreted as some form of memory which is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one processor” is described the written description of the specification as originally filed in para. [0253] as follows:
“[0253] The processor 1801 may include one or more processing cores, such as a 4-core processor or an 8-core processor. The processor 1801 may be implemented by using at least one hardware form of a digital signal processor (DSP), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and a programmable logic array (PLA). The processor 1801 may further include a main processor and a coprocessor. The main processor is a processor configured to process data in an active state, also referred to as a central processing unit (CPU). The coprocessor is a low-power consumption processor configured to process data in a standby state. In some embodiments, the processor 1801 may be integrated with a graphics processing unit (GPU). The GPU may be configured to be responsible for rendering and drawing content that may need to be displayed in a display. In some embodiments, the processor 1801 may also include an artificial intelligence (AI) processor. The AI processor may be configured to process a computing operation related to machine learning.”
As such, “at least one processor,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 10 or 19. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0316451 to Zhang, et al., (hereinafter “Zhang”) and U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0307786 to Lu. However, Zhang and Lu do not explicitly teach: “displaying capture prompt information of the pet virtual character; and displaying successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the capture prompt information indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state…
wherein the capture prompt information indicates status information for capturing the pet virtual character, and
wherein the capturable state indicates a capture success rate of the pet virtual character reaching at least one of a target probability or a target probability range,” per claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 10 and 19. Therefore, claims 1-20 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715