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 § 102
2. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by CN 112121414 to Tencent Technology (“Tencent”). All citations are to a machine translation provided in the Notice of References Cited).
In Reference to Claims 1, 8, and 15
Tencent discloses a virtual character tracing device and method performed by a computer device (See highlighted portions of machine translation on Page 1 “provides a tracking method in a virtual scene”; Page 2 “electronic device”, “memory”, “processor”, “computer-readable storage medium”, and “instructions”), the method comprising:
displaying a virtual scene and a mini-map picture, the virtual scene including a first virtual character (Page 6 “virtual scene 500”; Page 7 “tracking interface 540 (which may be a minimap), Page 6 “virtual objects (which may be game characters)”);
in response to a target trigger operation, controlling the first virtual character to launch a first virtual attack item at a second virtual character (Page 6 “client 410 releases the special effect” and “detecting at least one second virtual object included in the special effect release range”) in a different camp from the first virtual character (there is a “tracking prop” as in a bullet that reaches a target location – the target location is interpreted as virtual characters in a countermeasure relationship which would reasonably be a description of a different camp (See Page 6 “prop 520 reaches the target location”; Page 11 “shooting of a bullet”, Page 15 “countermeasure relationship); and
displaying a movement of a position of the second virtual character in the mini-map picture after the second virtual character is hit by the first virtual attack item (Page 5 see”tracing props”, Page 7 “the client 410 may continue to present the real-time location of the first virtual object 510 itself in the tracking interface 540.”, See Page 25 where as in Fig. 13 “the infected enemy is indicated by the circle mark in the small map” and updated accordingly as in Fig. 13 132).
In Reference to Claims 2, 9, and 16
Tencent discloses displaying target identity information of the second virtual character in the mini-map picture after the second virtual character is hit by the first virtual attack item (Fig. 13 131 showing circle information of infected virtual character).
In Reference to Claims 3, 10, and 17
Tencent discloses displaying, in the mini-map picture, a position of a third virtual character located within a preset range of the second virtual character after the second virtual character is hit by the first virtual attack item, the third virtual character being a virtual character from the same camp as the second first virtual character (Page 6 the special effect “detects at least one second virtual object included in the special effect release range” where Page 11 ”The position presenting module 4554 is configured to invoke the rendering component to render the real-time position of the at least one second virtual object into the tracking interface of the first virtual object.”. The third character being in the range and so in the same camp as the second virtual character).
In Reference to Claims 4, 11, and 18
Tencent discloses displaying, in the mini-map picture, a real-time position of the second virtual character (Fig. 13) within preset duration (Page 17) after the second virtual character is hit by the first virtual attack item; and canceling display of the position of the second virtual character when the preset duration is reached (Page 17 “In fig. 3C, after step 303, in step 304, when the duration of presenting the real-time position of the second virtual object with confrontational relationship reaches the tracking duration, the presentation of the real-time position of the second virtual object with confrontational relationship is stopped.”).
In Reference to Claims 5, and 12
The claim recites simultaneously displaying an orientation of the second virtual character, a type of a virtual item owned by the second virtual character, and a virtual hit point scale of the second virtual character when the position of the second virtual character is displayed in the mini- map picture. This associated display of information is non-functional descriptive matter as the presentation or not of these elements has no bearing on the further operation of the claim and receive no patentable weight. Tencent discloses additional minimpa information wherein a position {orientation} of the virtual character is presented (Page 25 in fig. 13 where the position is indicated and updated accordingly, and of a real-time direction of the tracked prop Page 27).
In Reference to Claims 7, 14, and 20
Tencent discloses transmitting first prompt information to a first virtual character set in the same camp as the first virtual character after the position of the second virtual character is displayed in the mini-map picture, the first prompt information prompting that a real-time position of the second virtual character is displayed in the mini-map picture (Fig. 13 wherein the minimap of the client 410 receive updated {prompt} information on infected virtual characters and their real-time location).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tencent in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0109472 to Tabata.
Tencent discloses the invention substantially as claimed to further disclose a killing number which Examiner construes as the character health (Page 19) and stopping the display in the minimap after a predetermined tracking time period (Page 25). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose canceling display of the position of the second virtual character in the mini-map picture when a virtual hit point of the second virtual character satisfies a preset condition. One of skill in the art would be aware of the game apparatus of Tabata.
Tabata discloses (Fig. 3 remaining hit point values) for combating virtual characters (Fig. 9A soldiers 61) in a screen display [0083] and wherein a hit point is displayed on a field map ([0054]) reduced according to a predetermined condition (Claim 3) until the character is in a battle impossible state and is not displayed on the display screen 24 ([0055]). Tabata invents this system to “provide a game apparatus and a game program, which are capable of more strategically conducting a battle with an enemy character, deepening interest, winning a battle with a formidable enemy even without any level up, and enjoying a game that is rich in strategic feature.” ([0009]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify to duration and range parameters of Tencent with the displayed information of the hit rate to provide more information to the player to make battles more engaging with enemy characters and deepen interest where winning a battle with a formidable enemy even without any level up, results in enjoying a game that is rich in strategic feature.” The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights