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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on June 2, 2026 for the patent application 18/662,251 filed on May 13, 2024. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are amended. Claims 2, 7, 11, 16 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-19 are pending. The first office action of January 23, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-19 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;
dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character, the capture success rate of the pet virtual character determined based on one or more interactions between a master virtual character and the pet virtual character; and
displaying successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the element with a first display style of the plurality of display styles indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state and a capture operation of the master virtual character on the pet virtual character,
wherein the prompt element indicates status information for capturing the pet virtual character,
wherein the capturable state indicates the capture success rate reaching at least one of a target probability or a target probability range.”
Per claim 10:
“capture prompt code configured to display a pet virtual character located in a virtual world;
display code configured to dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character, the capture success rate of the pet virtual character determined based on one or more interactions between a master virtual character and the pet virtual character; and
capture success code configured to display successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the prompt element with a first display style of the plurality of display styles indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state and a capture operation of the master virtual character on the pet virtual character,
wherein the prompt element is configured for indicating status information related to capturing the pet virtual character,
wherein the capturable state is configured for indicating the capture success rate reaching at least one of a target probability or a target probability range, and
wherein the plurality of display styles is determined based on the capture success rate.”
Per claim 19:
“display capture prompt information of a pet virtual character in a virtual world;
dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character, the capture success rate of the pet virtual character determined based on one or more interactions between a master virtual character and the pet virtual character; and
display successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the prompt element with a first display style of the plurality of display styles indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state and a capture operation of the master virtual character on the pet virtual character,
wherein the prompt element is configured for indicating status information related to capturing the pet virtual character,
wherein the capturable state is configured for indicating the capture success rate reaching at least one of a target probability or a target probability range, and
wherein the plurality of display styles is determined based on the capture success rate.”
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 3-6, 8-9, 12-15 and 17-18 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-15 and 17-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 10 or 19. Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on June 2, 2026 related to claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-19 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is not directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A. With respect to the first prong of Step 2A, the Examiner asserts that claim 1 is directed to mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding mental processes, the Federal Circuit held that "claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. Inc. V. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Without conceding to the appropriateness of the rejection, claim 1 is amended to recite, in part, "dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character, the capture success rate of the pet virtual character determined based on one or more interactions between a master virtual character and the pet virtual character."
Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features cannot be practically performed in the human mind, even with a paper and pencil. For example, a human mind cannot "dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character". Rather, claim 1 is directed to improving computer's ability to display information for interaction with user devices. Moreover, these limitations require modifying a graphical user interface (GUI) layer in real time, including rendering visual elements in specific regions (e.g., a "status bar") associated with a virtual character. USPTO guidance consistently recognizes that real-time UI updates tied to system state and requiring graphical rendering are not mental processes. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to mental processes..”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required. Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite “a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept of “a virtual world,” which has been done in the analog (i.e. toys) for decades if not centuries. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Regarding organizing human activity, the MPEP states three categories of certain methods of organizing human activity, which is:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The Examiner is alleging that the claims are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Applicant respectfully disagrees. For example, the MPEP notes examples of managing personal behavior as:
filtering content. BASCOM Global Internet V. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
considering historical usage information while inputting data. BSG Tech. LLC V. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir.2018).
a process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions. In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Without conceding to the appropriateness of the rejection, claim 1 is amended to recite "dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character, the capture success rate of the pet virtual character determined based on one or more interactions between a master virtual character and the pet virtual character." Applicant respectfully submits that dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character is different from the examples as noted by the MPEP.
Regarding the interactions between people, the MPEP provides examples such as:
voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation. Voter Verified, Inc. V. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information. Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). At least the amended features of claim 1 (e.g., dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character) are different from the activities of performing steps for voting or providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information. Moreover, the "master virtual character" and "pet virtual character" are computer-generated entities, not real people (these virtual characters also cannot be generated by human mind, thus not mental process). The "interactions" are in-game or system-defined interactions, not human social, economic, or interpersonal behavior. The "prompt element" and "status bar" are graphical interface constructs, not instructions, recommendations, or behavioral nudges directed to a human user. The amended claim governs how a computer system visually represents internal state changes of virtual objects within a user interface. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is not directed to methods of organizing human activity. Instead, this is analogous to example 23 of the Subject Matter Eligibly Examples issued by the USPTO on July 2029 ("Example 23"), as further described below.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the abstract idea is related to following rules or instructions, which are categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Also, MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for interacting with “a virtual pet” in a “virtual world,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea 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). The Applicant has merely provided a different medium for these interactions to take place.
Second, it was never the intent of the USPTO or the United States Supreme Court to name all possible examples of abstract ideas in the MPEP. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Even assuming for the sake of the argument that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant respectfully submits that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. The MPEP states that the Office should "evaluate integration into a practical application by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application." MPEP § 2106.04. The Office asserts that the other elements of claim 1 (e.g., at least one processor) are "additional elements" that do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claim as a whole integrates the alleged exception into a practical application, as evidenced by the Specification. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
The claimed invention provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. For example, the Applicant's specification as originally filed ("Specification") describes the technical problem, which is inefficient human-computer interaction caused by the user interface displaying incomplete information (e.g., energy value) to the user. Specification at paragraphs [0003]-[0005].
Claim 1, as a whole and when read in light of the Specification, solves this technical problem by at least "dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character, the capture success rate of the pet virtual character determined based on one or more interactions between a master virtual character and the pet virtual character," and "displaying successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the prompt element with a first display style of the plurality of display styles indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state and a capture operation of the master virtual character on the pet virtual character." As a result, improving computer's ability (e.g., improve efficiency) to display information and interact with the user. Id. at paragraphs [0110], [0184], and [0228]. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as a whole is directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or a technical field.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Also, this is analogous to Example 23. In particular, the claim in Example 23 recites, in part:
displaying a first window containing textual information in a first format within a graphical user interface on a computer screen;
displaying a second window within the graphical user interface;
constantly monitoring the boundaries of the first window and the second window to detect an overlap condition where the second window overlaps the first window such that the textual information in the first window is obscured from a user's view;
automatically relocating the textual information, by a processor, to an unobscured portion of the first window in a second format during an overlap condition so that the textual information is viewable on the computer screen by the user; and
automatically returning the relocated textual information, by the processor, to the first format within the first window when the overlap condition no longer exists.
Example 23. The USPTO concludes that the claims recites dynamically relocating textual information within a window displayed in a graphical user interface based upon a detected overlap condition and addresses a problem with overlapping windows within a graphical user interface. Id. The USPTO further concludes that the claimed features as a whole does not recite any mathematical concept or a mental process such as comparing or categorizing information that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Id.
Similarly, amended claim 1 recites, in part:
dynamically displaying a prompt element on a first status bar of the pet virtual character with a plurality of display styles based on a capture success rate of the pet virtual character, the capture success rate of the pet virtual character determined based on one or more interactions between a master virtual character and the pet virtual character;
displaying successful capture of the pet virtual character based on the prompt element with a first display style of the plurality of display styles indicating the pet virtual character is in a capturable state and a capture operation of the master virtual character on the pet virtual character;
Consistent with the USPTO's conclusion shown in Example 23, claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because claim 1 recites a specific improvement (e.g., improvement of computer's ability to display information and interact with the user).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although “the examples” consist of hypothetical cases that may parallel Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions, the examples are not considered precedential and are not fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. That being said, the Applicant’s argument with regard to “Example 23” does not super cede the Examiner’s subject-matter eligibility analysis using precedential Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the dynamic relocation of obscured textual information of an underlying window to become automatically viewable to a user as described in Example 23 is relevant with regard to the Applicant’s claims of a person interacting with a computer for interacting with “a virtual pet” in a “virtual world.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception to patentability and is therefore patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Independent claims 10 and 19 each recite features that are not necessarily identical but similar to claim 1. Therefore, claims 10 and 19 are also directed to patent-eligible subject matter for similar reasons as noted above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-15, and 17-18 each depend on one of claims 1 and 10. claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are also directed to patent-eligible subject matter based on their respective dependencies and the additional features recited therein.
Withdrawal of the pending rejections of these claims is, therefore, respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons previously discussed here and above in the office action. The Applicant’s claims do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
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 ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, 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 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights