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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on October 14, 2024 and November 7, 2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a virtual object control method” (i.e. “a process”); claim 13 is directed to “a processing apparatus” (i.e. “a machine”); and claim 20 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “virtual object control,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“displaying an operation control element that is configured to control a virtual object to move in a virtual scene;
controlling, based on a sliding touch operation being performed from a position of the operation control element to a recognition region, the virtual object to automatically move in the virtual scene in a first movement state; and
controlling when a touch duration of the sliding touch operation on the recognition region reaches a threshold, the virtual object to automatically move in the virtual scene in a second movement state, a movement speed in the second movement state being faster than a movement speed in the first movement state.”
Per claim 13:
“display an operation control element that is configured to control a virtual object to move in a virtual scene;
control, based on a sliding touch operation being performed from a position of the operation control element to a recognition region, the virtual object to automatically move in the virtual scene in a first movement state; and
control, when a touch duration of the sliding touch operation on the recognition region reaches a threshold, the virtual object to automatically move in the virtual scene in a second movement state, a movement speed in the second movement state being faster than a movement speed in the first movement state.”
Per claim 20:
“displaying an operation control element that is configured to control a virtual object to move in a virtual scene;
controlling, based on a sliding touch operation being performed from a position of the operation control element to a recognition region, the virtual object to automatically move in the virtual scene in a first movement state; and
controlling, when a touch duration of the sliding touch operation on the recognition region reaches a threshold, the virtual object to automatically move in the virtual scene in a second movement state, a movement speed in the second movement state being faster than a movement speed in the first movement state.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “rules are abstract ideas” (i.e. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and “a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, [without] any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.” (i.e. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “processing circuitry” and “processor” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “virtual object control,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “processing circuitry” and “processor” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “processing circuitry” and “processor” are described the written description of the specification as originally filed in paras. [0136]-[0137] as follows:
“[0136] In an example, the terminal device 1300 includes processing circuitry, such as a processor 1301, and a memory 1302.
[0137] In some embodiments, the processor 1301 may include one or more processing cores, for example, a 4-core processor or an 8-core processor. The processor 1301 may be implemented by using at least one hardware form of a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or a programmable logic array (PLA). The processor 1301 may also include a main processor and a coprocessor, where the main processor is a processor configured to process data in an awake state, and is also referred to as a central processing unit (CPU); and the coprocessor is a low power consumption processor configured to process data in a standby state. In some embodiments, the processor 1301 may be integrated with a graphics processing unit (GPU), and the GPU is configured to render and draw content that needs to be displayed on a display screen. In some embodiments, the processor 1301 may further include an artificial intelligence (AI) processor, and the AI processor is configured to process computing operations related to machine learning.”
As such, “processing circuitry” and “processor” are reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 13. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2017/0197144 to Maa. However, Maa does not explicitly teach: “controlling, by processing circuitry when a touch duration of the sliding touch operation on the recognition region reaches a threshold, the virtual object to automatically move in the virtual scene in a second movement state, a movement speed in the second movement state being faster than a movement speed in the first movement state,” per claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 13 and 20. Therefore, claims 1-20 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715