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 .
Claim Status
Claims 12-31 are currently pending in the application filed April 9 2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 on April 9 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2025 and 04/09/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawings for claim 15-16 22-23, and 29-30 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 15, 22 and 29 mention duration and displaying of scores however the drawing does not show duration or score.
Claims 16, 23 and 30 mention closing of unfinished tasks however the drawing does not show what happens in that situation.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the currently filed disclosure contains language from the claims and is written with semi colons throughout mirroring the claim language. Applicants are encouraged to rewrite the abstract of the disclosure as per the guidance of MPEP 608.01(b) to remove the form an legal phraseology and to be more narrative in nature.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
"most of the user attention" should be "most of the user's attention" [0004, 00024]
Inconsistent terminology “shoot image” and “shot image” [00035,00070, 00090]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13, 20 and 27 objected to because of the following informalities:
“andreceiving” should be “and receiving”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-25 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts without significantly more. The claims recite statutory categories:
Regarding claim 12, under step 1 the claim recites a method and falls under a statutory category.
Under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites limitations that amount to mental processes. These steps could practically be performed in the human mind. “Comparing feature information with the task information”, “performing feature extraction”, and “obtaining an image” can be done manually by a human, or judgment of data – clearly within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas under the July 2024 US PTO guidance.
Under step 2B, the claim fails to recite any additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 19, under step 1 the claim recites a method and falls under a statutory category.
Under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites limitations that amount to mental processes. These steps could practically be performed in the human mind. “Comparing feature information with the task information”, “performing feature extraction”, and “obtaining an image” can be done manually by a human, or judgment of data – clearly within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas under the July 2024 US PTO guidance.
Under step 2B, the claim fails to recite any additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, the claim adds limitations “detecting that the first user clicks…controlling a current interface …receiving a trigger instruction ... obtaining a shot image.”, which indicates user interaction along with data input and output hence it is performing data gathering which is an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim adds limitations “inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model … portrait information, object information, or action information.”, which indicates data analysis which contains mental process and data gathering.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim adds limitations “obtaining a duration … determining a score for the first user based on the duration.”, which contains mental process hence involving abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim adds limitation “closing all unfinished shooting tasks… determining a score”, which contains mental process hence involving abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim adds limitation “ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores; and displaying a result of the ranking”, which is comparing score hence it performs a mental process leading to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 18, the claim adds limitation “receiving, in the virtual room, a task type selected by the second user … establishing the shooting task list based on the task type and the task information.”, which involves data collection and is performing data gathering hence being a mental process.
Regarding claim 20, the claim adds limitations “detecting that the first user clicks…controlling a current interface …receiving a trigger instruction ... obtaining a shot image.”, which indicates user interaction along with data input and output hence it is performing data gathering which is an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim adds limitations “inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model … portrait information, object information, or action information.”, which indicates data analysis which contains mental process and data gathering.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim adds limitations “obtaining a duration … determining a score for the first user based on the duration.”, which contains mental process hence involving abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim adds limitation “closing all unfinished shooting tasks… determining a score”, which contains mental process hence involving abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim adds limitation “ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores; and displaying a result of the ranking”, which is comparing score hence it performs a mental process leading to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 25, the claim adds limitation “receiving, in the virtual room, a task type selected by the second user … establishing the shooting task list based on the task type and the task information.”, which involves data collection and is performing data gathering hence being a mental process.
Regarding claim 27, the claim adds limitations “detecting that the first user clicks…controlling a current interface …receiving a trigger instruction ... obtaining a shot image.”, which indicates user interaction along with data input and output hence it is performing data gathering which is an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 28, the claim adds limitations “inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model … portrait information, object information, or action information.”, which indicates data analysis which contains mental process and data gathering.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim adds limitations “obtaining a duration … determining a score for the first user based on the duration.”, which contains mental process hence involving abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim adds limitation “closing all unfinished shooting tasks… determining a score”, which contains mental process hence involving abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim adds limitation “ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores; and displaying a result of the ranking”, which is comparing score hence it performs a mental process leading to an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 26
A "computer-readable medium" is defined in the specification to include “[00081] The computer-readable medium according to the present disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium or a computer-readable storage medium or any combination of the two. The computer-readable storage medium may be, for example, but is not limited to, an electrical, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any combination thereof. More specific examples of the computer-readable storage medium include but are not limited to: an electrical connection with at least one wire, a portable computer disk, a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination thereof. In the present disclosure, the computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that contains or stores a program. The program may be used by or used in combination with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. However, in the present disclosure, the computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in baseband or as a part of a carrier wave, and computer-readable program code is carried therein. This propagated data signal may take many forms, including but not limited to electromagnetic signals, optical signals, or any suitable combination thereof. The computer-readable signal medium may also be any computer-readable medium other than the computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable signal medium may send, propagate, or transmit the program used by or used in combination with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. The program code contained on the computer-readable medium may be transmitted by any suitable medium, including but not limited to, wire, optical cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination thereof. [00082] In some implementations, a client and a server may communicate using any currently known or future developed network protocol such as HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and may interconnect with any form or medium of digital data communication (for example, a communication network). Examples of the communication network include a Local Area Network (LAN), a Wide Area Network (WAN), the Internet network (for example, the Internet), and an end-to-end network (for example, an ad hoc end-to-end network), as well as any currently known or future developed networks. [00083] The computer-readable medium may be included in the electronic device described above; or it may exist alone without being assembled into the electronic device. [00084] The computer-readable medium carries one or more programs, and when the one or more programs are executed by the electronic device, causes the electronic device: in response to detecting that a first user enters a virtual room, to display a shooting task list in the virtual room; wherein the shooting task list contains a plurality of shooting tasks, and each shooting task carries task information; to obtain, for the shooting task, an image taken by the first user based on the task information carried by the shooting task; perform a feature extraction on the image to obtain feature information; and compare the feature information with the task information, and determining that the shooting task is completed if the feature information matches the task information." (Originally Filed Specification Paragraph [0081]- [0084]). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The claims, as defined in the specification, cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” and are, thus, being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A. "processing device" in claims 19 and dependent claims disclosed in paragraph [0078] (e.g., “the electronic device 300 may include a processing device (such as a central processing unit and a graphics processor) 301, which may execute various appropriate actions and processing according to a program stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 302or a program loaded to a random access memory (RAM) 303 from a storage device 308. Various programs and data required during operation of the electronic device 300 are also stored in the RAM 303. The processing device 301, the ROM 302 and the RAM 303 are connected with one another via a bus 304.”)
B. "storage device" in claims 19 and dependent claims described in paragraph [0078] (e.g., “processing according to a program stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 302or a program loaded to a random access memory (RAM) 303 from a storage device 308.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 12, 19, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quanyong (CN 102323988 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Quanyong teaches:
A method for interaction, comprising: (Quanyong, [Line 46]; “The purpose of the present invention is to provide a method and system for converting virtual props.”)
in response to detecting that a first user enters a virtual room (Quanyong, [Page 5 Line 291;“ the user enters the virtual game”), displaying a shooting task list (Quanyong, [Page 2 Line 70]; “The client takes a picture of a real item according to the task description”) in the virtual room; wherein the shooting task list contains a plurality of shooting tasks, and a shooting task of the plurality of shooting tasks carries task information;
(Quanyong, [Line 357]; “The device selects a game on the game player client and uploads it to the server, downloads the task description of the game from the server, the client takes pictures of real items according to the task description, and uploads it to the server”)
obtaining, for the shooting task, an image taken by the first user (Quanyong, [Page 2 Line 70]; “The client … task description “)based on the task information carried by the shooting task; (Quanyong, [Line 377]; “download the task description of the game from the server;”)
performing a feature extraction on the image to obtain feature information (Quanyong, [Line 140];”Outline features”); (Quanyong, [Line 140]; “Recognition module, used to extract the outline features of the picture and match it into a template of corresponding real items”)
and comparing the feature information with the task information, and determining that the shooting task is completed if the feature information matches the task information. (Quanyong, [Line 73]; “The server extracts the outline feature of the picture and matches it into a template of the corresponding real item, and then converts the template into a corresponding virtual prop and sends information to the client that the shooting task is completed and the recognition is successful.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Quanyong teaches:
at least one processing device; (Quanyong, [Line 399]; “The entire virtual props conversion process is deployed as a service on the server side”)
a storage device configured to store at least one program; (Quanyong, [Line 98]; “A game module, used to store the game information;”)
the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processing device, causes the at least one processing device to perform acts comprising: (Quanyong, [Line 399]; “The entire virtual props conversion process is deployed as a service on the server side”)
in response to detecting that a first user enters a virtual room(Quanyong, [Page 5 Line 291;“ the user enters the virtual game”), displaying a shooting task list (Quanyong, [Page 2 Line 70]; “The client takes a picture of a real item according to the task description”) in the virtual room; wherein the shooting task list contains a plurality of shooting tasks, and a shooting task of the plurality of shooting tasks carries task information;
(Quanyong, [Line 357]; “The device selects a game on the game player client and uploads it to the server, downloads the task description of the game from the server, the client takes pictures of real items according to the task description, and uploads it to the server”)
obtaining, for the shooting task, an image taken by the first user (Quanyong, [Page 2 Line 70]; “The client … task description “) based on the task information carried by the shooting task; (Quanyong, [Line 377]; “download the task description of the game from the server;”)
performing a feature extraction on the image to obtain feature information(Quanyong, [Line 140];”Outline features”); (Quanyong, [Line 140]; “Recognition module, used to extract the outline features of the picture and match it into a template of corresponding real items”)
and comparing the feature information with the task information, and determining that the shooting task is completed if the feature information matches the task information. (Quanyong, [Line 73]; “The server extracts the outline feature of the picture and matches it into a template of the corresponding real item, and then converts the template into a corresponding virtual prop and sends information to the client that the shooting task is completed and the recognition is successful.”)
Regarding Claim 26, Quanyong teaches:
A computer-readable medium storing a computer program, wherein the program, when executed by a processing device, performs acts comprising: (Quanyong, [Line 420]; “the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented by electronic hardware, computer software, or a combination of the two.”)
in response to detecting that a first user enters a virtual room(Quanyong, [Page 5 Line 291;“ the user enters the virtual game”), displaying a shooting task list (Quanyong, [Page 2 Line 70]; “The client takes a picture of a real item according to the task description”) in the virtual room; wherein the shooting task list contains a plurality of shooting tasks, and a shooting task of the plurality of shooting tasks carries task information;
(Quanyong, [Line 357]; “The device selects a game on the game player client and uploads it to the server, downloads the task description of the game from the server, the client takes pictures of real items according to the task description, and uploads it to the server”)
obtaining, for the shooting task, an image taken by the first user (Quanyong, [Page 2 Line 70]; “The client … task description “) based on the task information carried by the shooting task; (Quanyong, [Line 377]; “download the task description of the game from the server;”)
performing a feature extraction on the image to obtain feature information(Quanyong, [Line 140];”Outline features”); (Quanyong, [Line 140]; “Recognition module, used to extract the outline features of the picture and match it into a template of corresponding real items”)
and comparing the feature information with the task information, and determining that the shooting task is completed if the feature information matches the task information. (Quanyong, [Line 73]; “The server extracts the outline feature of the picture and matches it into a template of the corresponding real item, and then converts the template into a corresponding virtual prop and sends information to the client that the shooting task is completed and the recognition is successful.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13, 20, and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanyong (CN 102323988 A) further in view of Lu (HUNT: Scavenger Hunt with Augmented Reality) and Zhang (CN106454094A).
Regarding Claim 13, Quanyong teaches:
In response to detecting that the first user clicks a shooting task (Quanyong, [page 4 Line 212]; “the game client selects the game”) in the shooting task list,
Quanyong fails to teach:
controlling a current interface to jump to a task interface where the shooting task is located; wherein the task interface is used to display the task information and a shooting button corresponding to the shooting task;
And receiving a trigger instruction for the shooting button from the first user, shooting a picture aimed at by a camera based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image.
Lu teaches:
controlling a current interface (Lu, [Page 28]; Figure 4: ScavGallery Interface)
PNG
media_image1.png
284
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to jump to a task interface where the shooting task is located; wherein the task interface is used to display the task information (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 1]; “a list of games that have been up loaded by the administrator.”) and a shooting button (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 1]; “Start Game button”) corresponding to the shooting task (Lu, [Page 29]; “Figure 5: Hunt mobile App Interface”];
PNG
media_image2.png
196
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include an interface with the task list as well as the shooting button. (Lu, [Page 29]; “Figure 5: Hunt mobile App Interface”;)
PNG
media_image3.png
229
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lu fails to teach:
And receiving a trigger instruction for the shooting button from the first user, shooting a picture aimed at by a camera based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image.
Zhang teaches:
And receiving a trigger ( Zhang, [Page 3 Line 120]; “photographing instruction is received means that the time when the user 119 starts triggering the photographing button”) instruction for the shooting button from the first user (Zhang, [page 3 Line 119]; “user”) , shooting a picture aimed at by a camera ( Zhang, [Page 3 Line 123]; “shooting button on the shooting interface of the mobile terminal camera”) based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image (Zhang, [Page 3 Line 173]; “generate a shot picture”).
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu and Zhang. The motivation for the combination is include an instruction when the shooting button is triggered. (Zhang, [Page 1 Line 51]; “performing image capturing during the reception of the photographing instruction to obtain a photographing instruction ”;)
Regarding Claim 20, Quanyong teaches:
In response to detecting that the first user clicks a shooting task (Quanyong, [page 4 Line 212]; “the game client selects the game”) in the shooting task list,
Quanyong fails to teach:
controlling a current interface to jump to a task interface where the shooting task is located; wherein the task interface is used to display the task information and a shooting button corresponding to the shooting task;
And receiving a trigger instruction for the shooting button from the first user, shooting a picture aimed at by a camera based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image.
Lu teaches:
controlling a current interface (Lu, [Page 28]; Figure 4: ScavGallery Interface)
PNG
media_image1.png
284
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to jump to a task interface where the shooting task is located; wherein the task interface is used to display the task information (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 1]; “a list of games that have been up loaded by the administrator.”) and a shooting button (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 1]; “Start Game button”) corresponding to the shooting task (Lu, [Page 29]; “Figure 5: Hunt mobile App Interface”];
PNG
media_image2.png
196
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include an interface with the task list as well as the shooting button. (Lu, [Page 29]; “Figure 5: Hunt mobile App Interface”;)
PNG
media_image3.png
229
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lu fails to teach:
And receiving a trigger instruction for the shooting button from the first user, shooting a picture aimed at by a camera based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image.
Zhang teaches:
And receiving a trigger ( Zhang, [Page 3 Line 120]; “photographing instruction is received means that the time when the user 119 starts triggering the photographing button”) instruction for the shooting button from the first user (Zhang, [page 3 Line 119]; “user”) , shooting a picture aimed at by a camera ( Zhang, [Page 3 Line 123]; “shooting button on the shooting interface of the mobile terminal camera”) based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image (Zhang, [Page 3 Line 173]; “generate a shot picture”).
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu and Zhang. The motivation for the combination is include an instruction when the shooting button is triggered. (Zhang, [Page 1 Line 51]; “performing image capturing during the reception of the photographing instruction to obtain a photographing instruction ”;)
Regarding Claim 27, Quanyong teaches:
In response to detecting that the first user clicks a shooting task (Quanyong, [page 4 Line 212]; “the game client selects the game”) in the shooting task list,
Quanyong fails to teach:
controlling a current interface to jump to a task interface where the shooting task is located; wherein the task interface is used to display the task information and a shooting button corresponding to the shooting task;
And receiving a trigger instruction for the shooting button from the first user, shooting a picture aimed at by a camera based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image.
Lu teaches:
controlling a current interface (Lu, [Page 28]; Figure 4: ScavGallery Interface)
PNG
media_image1.png
284
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to jump to a task interface where the shooting task is located; wherein the task interface is used to display the task information (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 1]; “a list of games that have been up loaded by the administrator.”) and a shooting button (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 1]; “Start Game button”) corresponding to the shooting task (Lu, [Page 29]; “Figure 5: Hunt mobile App Interface”];
PNG
media_image2.png
196
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include an interface with the task list as well as the shooting button. (Lu, [Page 29]; “Figure 5: Hunt mobile App Interface”;)
PNG
media_image3.png
229
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lu fails to teach:
And receiving a trigger instruction for the shooting button from the first user, shooting a picture aimed at by a camera based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image.
Zhang teaches:
And receiving a trigger ( Zhang, [Page 3 Line 120]; “photographing instruction is received means that the time when the user 119 starts triggering the photographing button”) instruction for the shooting button from the first user (Zhang, [page 3 Line 119]; “user”) , shooting a picture aimed at by a camera ( Zhang, [Page 3 Line 123]; “shooting button on the shooting interface of the mobile terminal camera”) based on the trigger instruction, and obtaining a shot image (Zhang, [Page 3 Line 173]; “generate a shot picture”).
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu and Zhang. The motivation for the combination is include an instruction when the shooting button is triggered. (Zhang, [Page 1 Line 51]; “performing image capturing during the reception of the photographing instruction to obtain a photographing instruction ”;)
Claims 14, 21, and 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanyong (CN 102323988 A) further in view of Pisoni (US10019654B1) and Rogez (US2021073525A1)
Regarding Claim 14, Quanyong fails to teach:
inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model to obtain the feature information corresponding to the image;
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, or action information.
Pisoni teaches
inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model to obtain the feature information corresponding to the image; (Pisoni, [Column 1 Line 38]; “The mobile device uses a deep neural network, potentially without requesting data from another computer, to analyze the image and determine the specific objects depicted in the image”)
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, (Pisoni, [Column 1 Line 19];” an image analysis system may determine whether an object depicted in an image is a person, a tree, or a dog”)
Pisoni fails to teach:
or action information.
Rogez teaches:
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, or action information. (Rogez, [0025]; “determining an action performed by the individual and captured in the images by classifying the implicit representations of the poses of the individual”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Pisoni and Rogez. The motivation for the combination is to combine the shooting task game concept along with the application of neural networks (Pisoni, [Column 2 Line 2]; “the mobile device may receive the additional information from the deep neural network and provide additional information for presentation”) to detect portrait, object or action information. (Rogez, [0024];” human action recognition”)
Regarding Claim 21, Quanyong fails to teach:
inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model to obtain the feature information corresponding to the image;
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, or action information.
Pisoni teaches
inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model to obtain the feature information corresponding to the image; (Pisoni, [Column 1 Line 38]; “The mobile device uses a deep neural network, potentially without requesting data from another computer, to analyze the image and determine the specific objects depicted in the image”)
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, (Pisoni, [Column 1 Line 19];” an image analysis system may determine whether an object depicted in an image is a person, a tree, or a dog”)
Pisoni fails to teach:
or action information.
Rogez teaches:
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, or action information. (Rogez, [0025]; “determining an action performed by the individual and captured in the images by classifying the implicit representations of the poses of the individual”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Pisoni and Rogez. The motivation for the combination is to combine the shooting task game concept along with the application of neural networks (Pisoni, [Column 2 Line 2]; “the mobile device may receive the additional information from the deep neural network and provide additional information for presentation”) to detect portrait, object or action information. (Rogez, [0024];” human action recognition”)
Regarding Claim 28, Quanyong fails to teach:
inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model to obtain the feature information corresponding to the image;
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, or action information.
Pisoni teaches
inputting the image into a predetermined neural network model to obtain the feature information corresponding to the image; (Pisoni, [Column 1 Line 38]; “The mobile device uses a deep neural network, potentially without requesting data from another computer, to analyze the image and determine the specific objects depicted in the image”)
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, (Pisoni, [Column 1 Line 19];” an image analysis system may determine whether an object depicted in an image is a person, a tree, or a dog”)
Pisoni fails to teach:
or action information.
Rogez teaches:
wherein the feature information comprises at least one of: portrait information, object information, or action information. (Rogez, [0025]; “determining an action performed by the individual and captured in the images by classifying the implicit representations of the poses of the individual”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Pisoni and Rogez. The motivation for the combination is to combine the shooting task game concept along with the application of neural networks (Pisoni, [Column 2 Line 2]; “the mobile device may receive the additional information from the deep neural network and provide additional information for presentation”) to detect portrait, object or action information. (Rogez, [0024];” human action recognition”)
Claims 15, 22, and 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanyong (CN 102323988 A) further in view of Lu (HUNT: Scavenger Hunt with Augmented Reality)
Regarding Claim 15, Quanyong fails to teach:
if all shooting tasks in the shooting task list are completed, obtaining a duration required by the first user to complete all the shooting tasks;
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Lu teaches:
if all shooting tasks in the shooting task list are completed (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3] “successfully completing the quest”), obtaining a duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “time used”) required by the first user (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the player”) to complete all the shooting tasks (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “Upon either successfully completing the quest …. receives a game summary that includes … time used”);
determining a score (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “points earned”) for the first user based on the duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the current game name, total number of objects, objects found, points earned, and time used”.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include a duration of task completion as well as scoring of the game (Lu, [Figure 6: Figure 6: HUNT mobile app Interface)
PNG
media_image4.png
231
533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, , Quanyong fails to teach:
if all shooting tasks in the shooting task list are completed, obtaining a duration required by the first user to complete all the shooting tasks;
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Lu teaches:
if all shooting tasks in the shooting task list are completed (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3] “successfully completing the quest”), obtaining a duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “time used”) required by the first user (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the player”) to complete all the shooting tasks (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “Upon either successfully completing the quest …. receives a game summary that includes … time used”);
determining a score (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “points earned”) for the first user based on the duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the current game name, total number of objects, objects found, points earned, and time used”.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include a duration of task completion as well as scoring of the game (Lu, [Figure 6: Figure 6: HUNT mobile app Interface)
PNG
media_image4.png
231
533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 29, , Quanyong fails to teach:
if all shooting tasks in the shooting task list are completed, obtaining a duration required by the first user to complete all the shooting tasks;
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Lu teaches:
if all shooting tasks in the shooting task list are completed (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3] “successfully completing the quest”), obtaining a duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “time used”) required by the first user (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the player”) to complete all the shooting tasks (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “Upon either successfully completing the quest …. receives a game summary that includes … time used”);
determining a score (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “points earned”) for the first user based on the duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the current game name, total number of objects, objects found, points earned, and time used”.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include a duration of task completion as well as scoring of the game (Lu, [Figure 6: Figure 6: HUNT mobile app Interface)
PNG
media_image4.png
231
533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 16, 23, and 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanyong (CN 102323988 A) further in view of Sano (JP 2019080732 A) and Lu (HUNT: Scavenger Hunt with Augmented Reality)
Regarding Claim 16, Quanyong fails to teach:
if the first user completes a part of the shooting tasks within a first predetermined duration, closing all unfinished shooting tasks;
obtaining a second predetermined duration corresponding to each unfinished shooting task, determining a duration required by the first user based on the second predetermined duration and the first predetermined duration;
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Sano teaches:
if the first user completes a part of the shooting tasks within a first predetermined duration (Sano, [0070]; In step S7, after the predetermined time has elapsed, … " YOU ARE SAVED " …On the other hand, … " YOU ARE DEAD " ...obtaining a second predetermined duration;), closing all unfinished shooting tasks (Sano, [0074]; “Thereafter, the game is ended”);
obtaining a second predetermined duration (Sano, [0063]; “extending the time to two minutes.”) corresponding to each unfinished shooting task, determining a duration required by the first user based on the second predetermined duration and the first predetermined duration; (Sano, [0075]; “When the predetermined time has elapsed, the information providing unit 275 provides additional information to the display control unit 271 (S82). As a result, the map information after the information provision is displayed on the display unit 240 of the game device 20B (S83). If the predetermined time has not elapsed, the process returns to step S8, and step S8 and step S81 are repeated”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Sano. The motivation for the combination is to include closing of all unfinished tasks (Sano, [0019];” When the input ID number does not coincide with the ID number of the building in which the hostage is captured, " YOU ARE DEAD " or the like is displayed on the display unit 240. Thus, the game is ended.”)
the combination of Sano and Quanyong fail to teach:
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Lu teaches:
determining a score (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “points earned”) for the first user based on the duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the current game name, total number of objects, objects found, points earned, and time used”.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include a duration of task completion as well as scoring of the game (Lu, [Figure 6: Figure 6: HUNT mobile app Interface)
PNG
media_image4.png
231
533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, Quanyong fails to teach:
if the first user completes a part of the shooting tasks within a first predetermined duration, closing all unfinished shooting tasks;
obtaining a second predetermined duration corresponding to each unfinished shooting task, determining a duration required by the first user based on the second predetermined duration and the first predetermined duration;
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Sano teaches:
if the first user completes a part of the shooting tasks within a first predetermined duration (Sano, [0070]; In step S7, after the predetermined time has elapsed, … " YOU ARE SAVED " …On the other hand, … " YOU ARE DEAD " ...obtaining a second predetermined duration;), closing all unfinished shooting tasks (Sano, [0074]; “Thereafter, the game is ended”);
obtaining a second predetermined duration (Sano, [0063]; “extending the time to two minutes.”) corresponding to each unfinished shooting task, determining a duration required by the first user based on the second predetermined duration and the first predetermined duration; (Sano, [0075]; “When the predetermined time has elapsed, the information providing unit 275 provides additional information to the display control unit 271 (S82). As a result, the map information after the information provision is displayed on the display unit 240 of the game device 20B (S83). If the predetermined time has not elapsed, the process returns to step S8, and step S8 and step S81 are repeated”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Sano. The motivation for the combination is to include closing of all unfinished tasks (Sano, [0019];” When the input ID number does not coincide with the ID number of the building in which the hostage is captured, " YOU ARE DEAD " or the like is displayed on the display unit 240. Thus, the game is ended.”)
the combination of Sano and Quanyong fail to teach:
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Lu teaches:
determining a score (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “points earned”) for the first user based on the duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the current game name, total number of objects, objects found, points earned, and time used”.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include a duration of task completion as well as scoring of the game (Lu, [Figure 6: Figure 6: HUNT mobile app Interface)
Regarding Claim 30, Quanyong fails to teach:
if the first user completes a part of the shooting tasks within a first predetermined duration, closing all unfinished shooting tasks;
obtaining a second predetermined duration corresponding to each unfinished shooting task, determining a duration required by the first user based on the second predetermined duration and the first predetermined duration;
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Sano teaches:
if the first user completes a part of the shooting tasks within a first predetermined duration (Sano, [0070]; In step S7, after the predetermined time has elapsed, … " YOU ARE SAVED " …On the other hand, … " YOU ARE DEAD " ...obtaining a second predetermined duration;), closing all unfinished shooting tasks (Sano, [0074]; “Thereafter, the game is ended”);
obtaining a second predetermined duration (Sano, [0063]; “extending the time to two minutes.”) corresponding to each unfinished shooting task, determining a duration required by the first user based on the second predetermined duration and the first predetermined duration; (Sano, [0075]; “When the predetermined time has elapsed, the information providing unit 275 provides additional information to the display control unit 271 (S82). As a result, the map information after the information provision is displayed on the display unit 240 of the game device 20B (S83). If the predetermined time has not elapsed, the process returns to step S8, and step S8 and step S81 are repeated”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Sano. The motivation for the combination is to include closing of all unfinished tasks (Sano, [0019];” When the input ID number does not coincide with the ID number of the building in which the hostage is captured, " YOU ARE DEAD " or the like is displayed on the display unit 240. Thus, the game is ended.”)
the combination of Sano and Quanyong fail to teach:
and determining a score for the first user based on the duration.
Lu teaches:
determining a score (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “points earned”) for the first user based on the duration (Lu, [Page 29 Paragraph 3]; “the current game name, total number of objects, objects found, points earned, and time used”.
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Lu. The motivation for the combination is include a duration of task completion as well as scoring of the game (Lu, [Figure 6: Figure 6: HUNT mobile app Interface)
Claims 17, 24, and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanyong (CN 102323988 A), and Lu (HUNT: Scavenger Hunt with Augmented Reality) further in view of Knutsson (US2014080560A1)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Quanyong, and Lu fails to teach:
for a plurality of first users entering the virtual room,
ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores;
and displaying a result of the ranking.
Knutsson teaches:
for a plurality of first users (Knutsson, [0561]; “one or several other players”) entering the virtual room (Knutsson, [0565];” The player travels along a virtual path”),
ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores; (Knutsson, [0554]; “leaderboard showing who among the user's connections has the highest score.”)
and displaying a result of the ranking. (Knutsson, [0554]; “present a leaderboard.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong and Lu with Knutsson. The motivation for the combination is to involve several players in the game along with a leaderboard (Knutsson, [0693];” Within that group players may be higher ranked if they have spent more money or if they have spent more money within a specific time period”)
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Quanyong, and Lu fails to teach:
for a plurality of first users entering the virtual room,
ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores;
and displaying a result of the ranking.
Knutsson teaches:
for a plurality of first users (Knutsson, [0561]; “one or several other players”) entering the virtual room (Knutsson, [0565];” The player travels along a virtual path”),
ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores; (Knutsson, [0554]; “leaderboard showing who among the user's connections has the highest score.”)
and displaying a result of the ranking. (Knutsson, [0554]; “present a leaderboard.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong and Lu with Knutsson. The motivation for the combination is to involve several players in the game along with a leaderboard (Knutsson, [0693];” Within that group players may be higher ranked if they have spent more money or if they have spent more money within a specific time period”)
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Quanyong, and Lu fails to teach:
for a plurality of first users entering the virtual room,
ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores;
and displaying a result of the ranking.
Knutsson teaches:
for a plurality of first users (Knutsson, [0561]; “one or several other players”) entering the virtual room (Knutsson, [0565];” The player travels along a virtual path”),
ranking the plurality of first users based on the scores; (Knutsson, [0554]; “leaderboard showing who among the user's connections has the highest score.”)
and displaying a result of the ranking. (Knutsson, [0554]; “present a leaderboard.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong and Lu with Knutsson. The motivation for the combination is to involve several players in the game along with a leaderboard (Knutsson, [0693];” Within that group players may be higher ranked if they have spent more money or if they have spent more money within a specific time period”)
Claims 18 and 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quanyong (CN 102323988 A) further in view of Upton (US2013036168A1) and Zhou (CN 108776893 A)
Regarding Claim 18, Quanyong teaches:
wherein the task information is displayed as at least one of a text, an image (Quanyong, [Page 3 Line 137];” A picture receiving module”), or a video; (Quanyong, [Page 2 Line 82];” animation or the textual description “)
establishing the shooting task list based on the task type and the task information. (Quanyong, [Page 5 Line 255]; “, upload the specific task description of each game to the server to establish a task library”)
Quanyong fails to teach:
receiving a creation instruction triggered by a second user, and creating the virtual room based on the creation instruction;
receiving, in the virtual room, a task type selected by the second user and the task information input by the second user; wherein the task information is displayed as at least one of a text, an image, or a video; and
Upton teaches:
receiving a creation instruction triggered by a second user, and creating the virtual room based on the creation instruction; (Upton, [0025]; “The system 10 can support multiple virtual environments 20 , each having an associated shared object created when a participant wants to initiate a new virtual environment”)
Upton fails to teach:
receiving, in the virtual room, a task type selected by the second user and the task information input by the second user; wherein the task information is displayed as at least one of a text, an image, or a video; and
Zhou teaches:
receiving, in the virtual room, a task type selected by the second user and the task information input by the second user; wherein the task information is displayed as at least one of a text, an image, or a video; and (Zhou, [Page 10 Line 588]; “wherein the second user inputs an actual task amount that can be completed and a task that implements the actual task amount;”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Upton and Zhou. The motivation for the combination is to focus on the creation of virtual rooms and task type classification along with allowing display of task information. (Upton, [0025]; “The system 10 can support multiple virtual environments 20 , each having an associated shared object created when a participant wants to initiate a new virtual environment”)
Regarding Claim 25, Quanyong teaches:
wherein the task information is displayed as at least one of a text, an image (Quanyong, [Page 3 Line 137];” A picture receiving module”), or a video; (Quanyong, [Page 2 Line 82];” animation or the textual description “)
establishing the shooting task list based on the task type and the task information. (Quanyong, [Page 5 Line 255]; “, upload the specific task description of each game to the server to establish a task library”)
Quanyong fails to teach:
receiving a creation instruction triggered by a second user, and creating the virtual room based on the creation instruction;
receiving, in the virtual room, a task type selected by the second user and the task information input by the second user; wherein the task information is displayed as at least one of a text, an image, or a video; and
Upton teaches:
receiving a creation instruction triggered by a second user, and creating the virtual room based on the creation instruction; (Upton, [0025]; “The system 10 can support multiple virtual environments 20 , each having an associated shared object created when a participant wants to initiate a new virtual environment”)
Upton fails to teach:
receiving, in the virtual room, a task type selected by the second user and the task information input by the second user; wherein the task information is displayed as at least one of a text, an image, or a video; and
Zhou teaches:
receiving, in the virtual room, a task type selected by the second user and the task information input by the second user; wherein the task information is displayed as at least one of a text, an image, or a video; and (Zhou, [Page 10 Line 588]; “wherein the second user inputs an actual task amount that can be completed and a task that implements the actual task amount;”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Quanyong with Upton and Zhou. The motivation for the combination is to focus on the creation of virtual rooms and task type classification along with allowing display of task information. (Upton, [0025]; “The system 10 can support multiple virtual environments 20 , each having an associated shared object created when a participant wants to initiate a new virtual environment”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVANGI SARKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:00.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/SHIVANGI SARKAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights