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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to calculating drift of an object (mathematical concepts and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
a drifting state in which a drift angle of vehicle is greater than a first threshold;
decreasing of the drift angle of the vehicle;
the drift angle of the vehicle is less than the first threshold, exit the drifting state.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of calculating drift of an object.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite “computer device”; Claims 11 and 20 recite “processor”, “computer program”; Claim 11 recites “memory”; Claim 20 recites “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (virtual vehicle) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (computer device, processor, memory, computer program, and non-transitory computer-readable medium,) performing object operations are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Generic components (brake control, throttle control) are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) components in the field of operating vehicles.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic processors, memories, and object operating as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mathematical concepts and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of calculating drift of an object, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN Pub. CN112755531, Google Patent English Translation - https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112755531B/en?oq=CN112755531, to Tencent Technology (herein referred to as Tencent) in view of CarX Drift Racing 2 video game as evidence in YouTube video, “(532) Tips and Tricks to Drift like a Pro in CarX Drift Racing 2 (Controls Explained) - YouTube” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXF06l1BPE to Blake Broghammer (herein referred to as Broghammer).
Claims 1, 11, and 20. Tencent discloses (as required by claim 11) a computer device, comprising a processor and a memory, (as required by claim 20) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium the memory having a computer program stored therein, and the computer program being loaded and executed by the processor and causing the computer device to perform a virtual vehicle control method including:
displaying a virtual vehicle in a drifting state in which a drift angle of the virtual vehicle is greater than a first threshold (“an operation end event corresponding to the direction control and the drift control, if an included angle between the direction of the head of the virtual vehicle and the driving direction is greater than a first threshold value, controlling the virtual vehicle to keep the drift state, wherein the virtual vehicle is in the drift state and corresponds to the drift direction”; “drifting state is a moving state that a large included angle is formed between the direction of the vehicle head and the driving direction, so that the vehicle body slides through a curve”; “the size relation between the included angle and a first threshold value and a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is larger than the second threshold value. Illustratively, the first threshold is 45 degrees and the second threshold is 10 degrees”);
in response to an operation on a first brake control, gradually decreasing of the virtual vehicle (“brake control is a control for controlling the virtual vehicle to decelerate”);
in response to a first operation on a throttle control, accelerating the virtual vehicle (“an accelerator”); and
when the drift angle of the virtual vehicle is less than the first threshold, controlling the virtual vehicle to exit the drifting state (“if an included angle between the direction of the vehicle head and the driving direction is smaller than a second threshold value, controlling the virtual vehicle to be switched from a drifting state to a normal driving state after the target duration”; “the included angle between the vehicle head direction and the driving direction is too small, so that the user can exit from a drifting state”).
However, Tencent fails to explicitly disclose:
in response to an operation on a first brake control, gradually decreasing the drift angle of the virtual vehicle;
in response to a first operation on a throttle control, accelerating the virtual and the decreasing of the drift angle of the virtual vehicle (emphasis added).
Broghammer teaches in response to an operation on a first brake control, gradually decreasing the drift angle of the virtual vehicle;
in response to a first operation on a throttle control, accelerating the virtual vehicle and the decreasing of the drift angle of the virtual vehicle (0:27-0:33, 1:29-2:01, 2:18-2:40, 3:49-3:59, 6:55-7:23, a game player uses the brake and/or throttle to change the car’s drifting angle as turning different corners on a race track). The gaming system of Tencent would have motivation to use the teachings of Broghammer in order to more closely associate specific vehicle controls to how the vehicle is positioned and oriented during driving the vehicle in doing so would add more realism to the operating a vehicle in the video game.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Tencent with the teachings of Broghammer in order to more closely associate specific vehicle controls to how the vehicle is positioned and oriented during driving the vehicle in doing so would add more realism to the operating a vehicle in the video game.
PNG
media_image1.png
924
1164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
920
1166
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
924
1162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
924
1162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
912
1164
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
922
1162
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 14. Tencent in view of Broghammer teaches wherein the gradually decreasing the drift angle of the virtual vehicle comprises:
obtaining a target vehicle head orientation of the virtual vehicle at a next timestamp, a time interval between two adjacent timestamps being a unit time;
determining a target moving direction of the virtual vehicle at the next timestamp based on the target vehicle head orientation, an included angle between the target moving direction and the target vehicle head orientation being smaller than an included angle between a moving direction and a vehicle head orientation at a current timestamp (see Broghammer 0:02-0:18 as time passes during a drive on the race track the head of the car changes positioning including changes to different drift angles to direct the car in desired directions while the head of car is in a desired position, in some instances as a player drives the car the angle of the car is wider than a desired required angle for optimal speed, control, and performance); and
controlling the virtual vehicle to move at the next timestamp based on the target moving direction (see Broghammer 0:02-0:18).
Claim 5. Tencent in view of Broghammer teaches wherein the method further comprises:
accelerating the virtual vehicle within first duration from an exit moment of the drifting state (see Broghammer 0:02-0:18 after vehicle comes out of drifting position, a user hits throttle button to gain speed).
Claims 8 and 17. Tencent in view of Broghammer teaches wherein the method further comprises:
when the drift angle of the virtual vehicle is greater than a third threshold, determining that the virtual vehicle is in an out-of-control state (see Broghammer at 2:35-2:44 car “spin out”); and
controlling the virtual vehicle to switch from the out-of-control state to a grip-restored state (see Broghammer at 2:45-2:47 where the player gains control of the car’s steering and movement).
Claims 9 and 18. Tencent in view of Broghammer teaches wherein the method further comprises:
when the drift angle of the virtual vehicle is greater than a second threshold and less than a third threshold (see Broghammer 0:00-0:04 in this case, “ideal drifting” is when the head of the car is at about 45 degree angle interpreted as a second threshold, and 90 degrees is the third threshold), gradually decreasing the drift angle of the virtual vehicle and accelerating the virtual vehicle based on a first base acceleration of the virtual vehicle (see Broghammer 0:00-0:18 in cases where the drift angle of the car is lowered to particular point then a user hits the throttle button to gain speed).
Claims 10 and 19. Tencent in view of Broghammer teaches wherein the method further comprises:
when it is detected that a direction adjustment control and a second brake control are both in a triggered state, controlling the virtual vehicle to enter the drifting state (see Broghammer 0:02-0:18 instances where the user presses steering and brake controls simultaneously where this causes the vehicle to drifting).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN Pub. CN112755531, Google Patent English Translation - https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112755531B/en?oq=CN112755531, to Tencent Technology (herein referred to as Tencent) in view of CarX Drift Racing 2 video game as evidence in YouTube video, “(532) Tips and Tricks to Drift like a Pro in CarX Drift Racing 2 (Controls Explained) - YouTube” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXF06l1BPE to Blake Broghammer (herein referred to as Broghammer) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of YouTube video, “How to Stop Spins in Sim Racing” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AatMVQtn0I&t=158s to Danny Lee (herein referred to as Lee).
Claims 2 and 12. Tencent fails to explicitly disclose increasing grip of the virtual vehicle, the grip being in positive correlation with the decreasing of the drift angle.
Lee teaches increasing grip of the virtual vehicle, the grip being in positive correlation with the decreasing of the drift angle (see at 1:39-2:48 “restore grip to the rear tyres”). The gaming system of Tencent in view of Broghammer would have motivation to use the teachings of Lee in order to further make give a player the sensations and feel of driving a real car in doing so would add more realism to the operating the car in the video game.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Tencent in view of Broghammer with the teachings of Lee in order to add more realism to the operating of the car in the video game.
PNG
media_image7.png
1054
1392
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 3, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN Pub. CN112755531, Google Patent English Translation - https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112755531B/en?oq=CN112755531, to Tencent Technology (herein referred to as Tencent) in view of CarX Drift Racing 2 video game as evidence in YouTube video, “(532) Tips and Tricks to Drift like a Pro in CarX Drift Racing 2 (Controls Explained) - YouTube” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXF06l1BPE to Blake Broghammer (herein referred to as Broghammer) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Garena Speed Drifters video game as evidence provided in YouTube video “Garena Speed Drifters - CWW Boost Citrus” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3PYCzH_17M&t=12s to Xrabbit TV (herein referred to as Xrabbit).
Claims 3 and 13. Tencent fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 3 and 13.
Xrabbit teaches wherein the accelerating the virtual vehicle comprises:
superimposing an additional first acceleration on a first base acceleration of the virtual vehicle, to obtain a first target acceleration of the virtual vehicle; and
accelerating the virtual vehicle based on the first target acceleration (see at 0:22-0:50). The gaming system of Tencent in view of Broghammer would have motivation to use the teachings of Xrabbit in order to provide controls for players to quickly make their respective car instantly speed up in doing so would make the game play more fun.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Tencent in view of Broghammer with the teachings of Xrabbit in order to provide controls for players to quickly make their respective car instantly speed up in doing so would make the game play more fun.
PNG
media_image8.png
1046
1394
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
1048
1396
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
1050
1396
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
1052
1390
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
1052
1394
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
1050
1396
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
1050
1394
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 15. Tencent in view of Broghammer and Xrabbit teaches wherein the method further comprises:
when a second operation on the throttle control is detected, accelerating the virtual vehicle within duration of the second operation; and
when the duration of the second operation reaches a maximum response value from an exit moment of the drifting state, displaying prompt information configured for indicating that a full throttle skill is triggered (see Broghammer at 6:10-6:13 “full throttle”; see Xrabbit at 0:22-0:50 nitro and boost controls).
Claims 7 and 16. Tencent in view of Broghammer and Xrabbit teaches wherein the method further comprises:
when the drift angle of the virtual vehicle is less than a second threshold, accelerating the virtual vehicle and the decreasing of the drift angle of the virtual vehicle; and
displaying prompt information configured for indicating that a slingshot exit skill is triggered (see Xrabbit at 0:40-0:50 – booster button, tap again to trigger CCW boost).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715