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 .
Claims - 35 USC § 101
Examiner deems “in response to the driving speed of the virtual vehicle at the trigger moment of the third operation being greater than a speed threshold and the driving state of the virtual vehicle at the target time point being a straight-forward driving state” to be an abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm but that to perform inertial drift in a direction indicated by the first direction component as a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110368679 A to QIAN in view of CN 112169316 A to Zhao. Citations are to the machine translation shaded areas to simplify look-up).
Qian discloses a virtual vehicle control method performed by an electronic device (Abstr. vehicle mounted game method), the device comprising:
A processor and memory, stored code to implement the drift method (game controller and game processor Page 20, para. 1; stored instructions in memory Page 32, para. 1), and
the method comprising:
displaying a virtual vehicle in a virtual scene (“virtual object in a virtual scene” P. 11 para. 2, see also virtual racing car object P. 15, paras. 9 and 10);
during a continued first operation on a first direction component (construed to mean during use of a steering wheel), receiving a second operation triggered on a foot brake component and a third operation triggered on an accelerator component sequentially (“In one example embodiment of the present invention, when the display device is a vehicle-control screen, when the car race game experience method of user in the vehicle starting multi-person, vehicle-mounted system may receive a first user via the mobile instruction input by the steering wheel, an acceleration command input through the accelerator pedal or accelerator pedal, skill release instruction skill release instruction by instruction input of brake drift, input through the key-press on the steering wheel or in the vehicle control in the screen input, Page 15, para. 5);
determining a driving speed and a driving state of the virtual vehicle at a trigger moment of the third operation (“speed of accelerator pedal or accelerator pedal can control a virtual racing car object, according to the user stepping on the pedal or accelerator pedal degree for corresponding acceleration, brake virtual racing car object can be controlled to brake or drift, when the open car racing game interaction, the vehicle system may receive a first user instruction can be controlled for the first moving direction in the racing game of virtual racing car object through the steering wheel input” Page 18, para. 2), and
and the driving state of the virtual vehicle at the target time point being a straight-forward driving state (construed as the vehicle having a forward direction where “In a particular implementation, movement instructions can include controlling a virtual object to move the moving order. The control virtual object forward, control and steering of the virtual object, controlling a virtual object acceleration command to accelerate to move; deceleration command controlling a virtual object for drift instruction of drift, controlling to decelerate movement of the virtual object. Page 25, para. 4).
According to QIAN, “then the vehicle-mounted system can respond to the first control instruction; and controlling the display in the vehicle for steering, acceleration, drift and skill release control first virtual racing object in the screen” (Pages 15 para. 5 to -Page 16, para. 1). QIAN discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a trigger moment of the third {brake} operation being greater than a speed threshold. One of skill in the art would be aware of the virtual vehicle control of Zhao. Zhao has different input controls for drift but what is relied upon is the teachings for the relationship between braking, speed, thresholds, and timing (above).
According to Zhao, there is a trigger moment for braking in relation to a speed threshold to perform a drift operation. Citing Zhao,“[o]ptionally, in response to the touch operation of the side touch control response area of the side touch screen, determining the operation type and operation degree of the touch operation, comprising: in response to the first touch operation of the first response area and the second touch operation for the second response area, determining the first operation type is brake operation type and corresponding brake force, and determining the second operation type is accelerator operation type and corresponding to the accelerator force; controlling the motion state of the virtual vehicle on the main touch screen according to the operation type and the operation degree, comprising: when the brake force is the preset maximum brake threshold value, and the accelerator force is the preset maximum throttle threshold value, controlling the virtual vehicle to perform drift action” (Page 3, para. 1). Specifically, “when the brake force is the preset maximum brake threshold value, and the accelerator force is the preset maximum throttle threshold value, the virtual vehicle is accelerated by the maximum acceleration,” when these are both at their maximum there is a trigger moment where “at the same time, the tire of the virtual vehicle is locked, so as to reduce the driving speed to 0 in the shortest time” which places the braking moment greater than the speed threshold. Zhao concludes, “[u]nder some game scenes, the user controls the virtual vehicle to turn under the state of high speed driving; the virtual vehicle can be turned by the inclined mobile terminal; at the same time, the first response area in the side touch screen can be controlled by the touch operation of the brake operation type; and the brake force is adjusted to the maximum; locking the tire of the virtual vehicle; at the same time, the second response area of the side touch screen for the touch operation of the throttle operation type, and throttle force is adjusted to the maximum, controlling the virtual vehicle is in the drift state.” (Page 12, para. 2).
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, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the operations to effect the drift of Qian with the braking moment maximum threshold being greater than the speed of the drift maneuver of Zhao to achieve the predictable result of executing a drift move in a virtual game. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the combination of references with Qian operates based on receiving user input controls and measuring steering angles but not of obtaining a first image of the virtual vehicle nor of using drift angles nor of a hand brake component.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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