DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 8/7/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending. All are currently amended.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betti, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0331192 (“Betti”), in view of Ikuta, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0295962 (“Ikuta”).
With regard to Claim 1, Betti teaches an object processing method, comprising:
displaying a processing interface of a first user, wherein a number of first objects of the first user that is displayed in the processing interface is increased at a set speed and the processing interface comprises at least one display region ([0043] describes that a location can award users points in specific amounts for a user carrying out a particular action at the location, thereby increasing points at various set speeds. [0046] describes that a user interface displays a user’s accumulated points for the location);
in response to determining that a second user is matched through the processing interface, displaying a marker of the second user in a first region in the processing interface, the number of the first objects being increased at an adjusted set speed, the first region is an idle region in the display region, where no marker is displayed, and the idle region in the display region is displayed in the processing interface ([0053]-[0054] describe that a user and other users can be determined as present at the same location, enabling a user to issue a challenge message to one of the other identified users, where a challenge and therefore an outcome and point award dependent on a score level of each user in the game. Fig. 6 shows that the user challenged by a first user has an icon displayed corresponding to that user); and
in response to determining that the number of the first objects to be processed that is displayed in the processing interface reaches a target first value, processing the first objects ([0048] describes that when a user accumulates a number of points to reach a prize threshold, the points are processed by sending a message to a server, which acknowledges the event and presents the prize to the user, which can be specific to the location).
Betti, in view of Ikuta teaches wherein the adjusted set speed is determined based on the set speed and a level of the marker of the second user. Betti teaches the opponent marker, as described above. Ikuta teaches at [0068] that a received opponent image conveys the strength of the character, and [0099]-[0100] describe that each opponent has a particular amount and type of object count which can be increased in response to a player defeating that opponent, which also has a level associated therewith, thereby adjusting a particular speed by which a particular object is increased.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Ikuta with Betti. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for rewards that change, and that possibly are better, when a user defeats an opponent of a higher level.
Claim 12 recites an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors ([0035] computer or mobile device), causing the one or more processors to implement the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing computer programs, wherein the computer programs upon being executed by a processor ([0035], computer or mobile device) to implement the method of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected
With regard to Claim 2, Betti, in view of Ikuta teaches that the adjusted set speed is determined based on the set speed and an acceleration value corresponding to the level of the marker of the target object second user, different levels of the marker correspond to different acceleration values, and an adjustment duration of the set speed is a set duration. Betti teaches the opponent marker, as described above. Ikuta teaches at [0068] that a received opponent image conveys the strength of the character as the level increases, and [0099]-[0100] describe that each opponent has a particular amount and type of object count which can be increased in response to a player defeating that opponent, which also has a level associated therewith, thereby adjusting a particular speed by which a particular object is increased corresponding to the level as it is stored together in the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Ikuta with Betti. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for rewards that change, and that possibly are better, when a user defeats an opponent of a higher level.
Claim 14 recites causing the one or more processors to implement the additional method step of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Betti, in view of Ikuta teaches that a marker of the first user is displayed in the processing interface, a level of the marker of the first user is increased with an increase of a completion degree of processing the first objects by the first user, the level of the marker of the second user is increased with an increase of a completion degree of processing corresponding objects by the second user, and markers of different levels have different clothes.
Betti teaches at [0040] an interface which shows a ranking of each of a plurality of users, where Fig. 2 shows that each user has an associated icon, where each user is wearing clothes in their image. Ranks are shown based on scores, where [0048] describes that points scored and accumulated by users are used to process objects that a user receives. Ikuta teaches at [0068] that a character image can be used to convey a level of a player character.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Ikuta with Betti. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for rewards that change, and that possibly are better, when a user defeats an opponent of a higher level.
Claim 15 recites causing the one or more processors to implement the additional method step of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Betti teaches in response to determining that a time interval at which the application is restarted is greater than a set threshold, adjusting the number of the first objects to be processed by a first increment. [0041] describes that games can be set up a tournament with a specific start and end time, where the points are submitted after the threshold time set for the tournament expires.
Claim 18 recites causing the one or more processors to implement the additional method step of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Betti teaches in response to determining that a set operation is received through the processing interface, adjusting the number of the first objects to be processed with by a second increment. [0057] describes that a challenge can specify points to be won or lost in the game, thereby adjusting the number of objects that will be processed by different increments.
Claim 19 recites causing the one or more processors to implement the additional method step of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 8, Betti teaches in response to determining that a number of matched second user is equal to a set number, adjusting the number of the first objects to be processed by a third increment. [0057] describes that a challenge can specify points to be won or lost in the game, thereby adjusting the number of objects that will be processed by different increments.
Claim 20 recites causing the one or more processors to implement the additional method step of Claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 9, Betti teaches displaying a time-limited interface, the time-limited interface comprising indication information for processing the first objects; and in response to determining that the number of the first objects that is displayed in the time-limited interface reaches the first value, processing the first objects to be processed. [0041] describes that games can be set up a tournament with a specific start and end time, where the points are submitted after the threshold time set for the tournament expires. [0048] describes that when a user accumulates a number of points to reach a prize threshold, the points are processed by sending a message to a server, which acknowledges the event and presents the prize to the user, which can be specific to the location.
Claim 21 recites causing the one or more processors to implement the additional method step of Claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Betti teaches in response to determining that the number of the first objects does not reach the first value in set time, displaying an interaction interface; and in response to determining that a confirming operation in the interaction interface is received, acquiring an interaction object corresponding to the confirming operation. [0048] describes that an interface when user points reach a threshold is displayed, which would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that when a user’s points do not reach a threshold, such as during a time-limited tournament gams as described at [0041] another screen is determined to be displayed at the conclusion of the set time period.
Claims 4, 5, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betti, in view of Ikuta, and in view of Mueller, U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0121003 (“Mueller”).
With regard to Claim 4, Betti, in view of Mueller teaches that the second user is matched in following modes: an electronic device of the first user displaying the processing interface and an electronic device of the second user displaying a corresponding interface are simultaneously shaken; or a shaking control of the processing interface and a shaking control of the corresponding interface are simultaneously triggered.
Betti teaches at [0053]-[0054] a first user initiating a game with a second user. Mueller teaches at [0050] a plurality of people in a location playing a game, where [0047] describes that initiation of a game can be carried out in response to a user request, which a user can submit through shaking of their mobile device. Therefore, one or more players can initiate games by shaking their devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Betti with Mueller. [0010] of Mueller states that requiring shaking a device to initiate a game makes a user more engaged in the game. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve system functioning by increasing user engagement with it.
Claim 16 recites causing the one or more processors to implement the additional method step of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Betti teaches that the corresponding interface is an interface for processing the first objects in any one set application in an application group, the application group is a collection comprising at least one set application, and for a same natural person, processing progress of the first objects to be processed in a plurality of set applications are belonging to a same user is synchronous among a plurality of set applications. [0038] describes that a user can select from a plurality of games, and that the system tracks the users points across the various games and locations within the network.
Claim 17 recites causing the one or more processors to implement the additional method step of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights