Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 1-7 and 9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-21 are drawn to statutory categories of invention of machine or method.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites:
A game interaction method, performed by a terminal device, comprising:
displaying a game interface corresponding to a current player;
displaying at least one interactive control in response to detecting a first touch operation on at least one of a first player character identification or a second player character identification, wherein different interactive controls are configured to trigger presentation of different game event information, and a first player and a second player are player characters participating in a current game; and
determining, in response to detecting a second touch operation on a target interactive control, game event information corresponding to the first player and the second player based on the target interactive control;
wherein, the game event information comprises at least one of the following information:
economic information of the first player and the second player, or game strategies related to the first player and the second player.
As indicated above, the “determining” limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, an assistant could simply instruct a player on the information specified and aid them in the following of rules. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by a casino employee utilizing certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing human activity through the establishment of instructions, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, a “terminal device” is a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification demonstrates that the display and touch interactivity is recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 10 are rejected for similar reasoning. The additional limitations of “a non-transitory computer storage medium on which a computer program is stored” and “an electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing executable instructions for the processor” recite generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Claims 9 and 10 fail to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claims 9 and 10 are also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 and 11-21 are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 10 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the mental processes and mathematical concepts and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9-10, 15-16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110141854 A to Yang (hereinafter Yang).
Concerning claim 1,
Yang discloses a game interaction method, performed by a terminal device, comprising: displaying a game interface corresponding to a current player (0054);
displaying at least one interactive control in response to detecting a first touch operation on at least one of a first player character identification or a second player character identification, wherein different interactive controls are configured to trigger presentation of different game event information, and a first player and a second player are player characters participating in a current game (0053-0054, 0058, 0076, Figure 2-3, 5); and
determining, in response to detecting a second touch operation on a target interactive control, game event information corresponding to the first player and the second player based on the target interactive control (0054, 0076, Figure 6);
wherein, the game event information comprises at least one of the following information: economic information of the first player and the second player, or game strategies related to the first player and the second player (0054, 0076, Figure 6).
Concerning claim 6,
Yang discloses presenting the game event information to at least one of the first player or the second player; or,
presenting the game event information in a game chat interface (0057-0058, 0072).
Concerning claim 7,
Yang discloses playing the game event information in a form of voice (0057-0058, 0072).
Concerning claims 9-10, 15-16, and 21, see the rejection of claims 1 and 6-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110141854 A to Yang in view of its background.
Concerning claim 2,
Yang partially discloses the first player comprises a teammate of the current player; and the second player comprises a teammate or an opponent of the current player (0004, 0054).
The background provided teaches exemplary games for which the game interface could be utilized, in which the players are either teammates or opponents. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mechanics of the exemplary games with the game interface described in Yang as the interface is designed with said games in mind. The game mechanics would add to the enjoyment felt by a player operating the game interface.
Concerning claims 11 and 17, see the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-5, 12-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110141854 A to Yang in view of US Publication 2020/0376388 A1 to Lee (hereinafter Lee).
Concerning claim 3,
Yang discloses the first touch operation on at least one of the first player character identification or the second player character identification comprises: a drag operation (0053-0054, 0058, 0076, Figure 2-3, 5)
Yang does not disclose the drag operation is an operation of dragging the first player character identification to within a triggering range of the second player character identification;
or,
a drag operation, wherein the drag operation comprises an operation of dragging the second player character identification to within a triggering range of the first player character identification; and
a long press operation, wherein the long press operation is a first long press operation on the first player character identification, and a second long press operation on the second player character identification.
Lee teaches the drag operation is an operation of dragging the first player character identification to within a triggering range of the second player character identification;
or,
a drag operation, wherein the drag operation comprises an operation of dragging the second player character identification to within a triggering range of the first player character identification; and
a long press operation, wherein the long press operation is a first long press operation on the first player character identification, and a second long press operation on the second player character identification (0046, Figure 6).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the interacting behavior of icons when in range of one another as shown in Lee with the presentation of player information as shown in Yang as both arts pertain to a dragging interaction on a touch screen. The icons interacting as described in Lee would make the information presentation of Yang more multifaceted and versatile.
Concerning claim 4,
Yang discloses in response to determining that the first touch operation is the drag operation, the second touch operation on the target interactive control comprises: a click operation on the target interactive control (0054, 0076, Figure 6).
Concerning claim 5,
Yang partially discloses in response to determining that the touch first operation is the long press operation, the second touch operation on the target interactive control comprises:
dragging the first player character identification to the target interactive control after the first long press operation, and dragging the second player character identification to the target interactive control after the second long press operation; and
performing an operation of releasing the first player character identification and the second player character identification (0053-0054, 0058, 0076, Figure 2-3, 5).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the specifications applicant has provided, no new or unexpected result is produced by the duplication/repeating the dragging operation. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the dragging operation for the above reason.
Concerning claims 12-14 and 18-20, see the rejections of claims 3-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715