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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 6/2/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1-11, 14-20.
Currently, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li Bing (CN108536350) in view of Bayesic (Youtube Video: Everything You Need to Know About Drifting in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe) and MakoRuns (Youtube: 3 Perfect Start Techniques | Speed Drifters/QQ飞车).
Re Claim 1,
Li discloses a virtual vehicle control method performed by a computer device (pg 1, 7; a virtual object control method), the method comprising:
displaying a virtual vehicle in a driving state in a virtual environment (Fig 2, pg 2-7; a virtual vehicle is displayed on the player’s device);
controlling the virtual vehicle to enter a drift state in response to a first steering operation on a direction control component and a brake operation on a handbrake control component, the first steering operation being configured for controlling the virtual vehicle to steer to a first side of a speed direction (Fig 5, pg 2-7; an operation control is provided on the graphical user interface, which includes a direction operation area and a drift operation area, as illustrated in Fig. 5, the vehicle drifts into a right direction based on the first direction operation and the drift operation, further, the shape of the direction and the drift operation can be selected by the developer and the user, i.e., the drift operation area is considered as a brake operation);
turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle from a first direction to a second direction in response to a second steering operation on the direction control component, the second steering operation being configured for controlling the virtual vehicle to steer to a second side of the speed direction, a second angle formed between the second direction and the speed direction, a first angle formed between the first direction and the speed direction (Fig 2-7, pg 2-7; the virtual vehicle can be drifted to the other direction based on the direction operation area and the drift operation area, further, a drift angle is created according to the sliding distance and the operation duration); and
turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle from the second direction to a third direction, the third direction being located on the second side of the speed direction, while both the first direction and the second direction of the head of the virtual vehicle being located on the first side of the speed direction (pg 2-7; the virtual vehicle is controlled to drift in a different direction when the drift operation is detected).
Li does not explicitly disclose the second angle is less than the first angle during the drifting operation, and while applying the second steering operation on the direction control component: detecting a second brake operation on the handbrake control component, turning to a different direction in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component.
However, Bayesic teaches that the second angle is less than the first angle during the drifting operation. For instance, the player can control the drift angle with the joystick operation and the brake operation (times 1:51, 2:08-2:43, 4:14, 8:02, 10:55). Bayesic further teaches such a configuration allows the player to improve his gameplaying experience (youtube video). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Bayesic into the virtual control operation of Li in order to improve a player’s gameplay experience.
MakoRuns teaches while applying the second steering operation on the direction control component: detecting a second brake operation on the handbrake control component, turning to a different direction in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component (Youtube video shows the car drifting to a different direction when the steering direction is pressed and the drifting button is pressed again). MakoRuns further teaches such a configuration helps the player to win the race (pg 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of MakoRuns into the virtual operation control of Li in order to help the player to win the race.
Re Claims 2, 11,
Li discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle from the second direction to the third direction in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component when an angle between the head direction of the virtual vehicle and the speed direction of the virtual vehicle exceeds a drift threshold. However, MakoRuns teaches turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle from the second direction to the third direction in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component (youtube video). Bayesic teaches an angle between the head direction of the virtual vehicle and the speed direction of the virtual vehicle exceeds a drift threshold (youtube video). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 3, 12, 20,
Li discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on controlling the virtual vehicle to exit the drift state and enter a flat running state when the angle between the head direction of the virtual vehicle and the speed direction of the virtual vehicle does not exceed the drift threshold. However, Bayesic teaches controlling the virtual vehicle to exit the drift state and enter a flat running state when the angle between the head direction of the virtual vehicle and the speed direction of the virtual vehicle does not exceed the drift threshold (youtube video). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 4, 13,
Li discloses determining the speed direction of the virtual vehicle according to a grip force of the virtual vehicle, the head direction of the virtual vehicle, and a historical speed direction of the virtual vehicle (pg 2-7).
Re Claims 5, 14,
Li discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on updating the drift threshold according to a quantity of times that the reverse drift skill is triggered in a continuous steering virtual road section. However, Bayesic teaches updating the drift threshold according to a quantity of times that the reverse drift skill is triggered in a continuous steering virtual road section (youtube video). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 6, 15,
Li discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle from the second direction to the third direction in response to the continuous pressing operation on the direction control component and the brake operation on the handbrake control component. However, MakoRuns teaches turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle from the second direction to the third direction in response to the continuous pressing operation on the direction control component and the brake operation on the handbrake control component (youtube video). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 7, 16,
Li discloses turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle to the first direction in response to the first steering operation on the direction control component, wherein the first direction is located on the first side of the speed direction; and controlling the virtual vehicle to enter the drift state in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component (pg 2-7).
Re Claims 8, 17,
Li discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose controlling a virtual speed of the virtual vehicle to decrease in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component. However, Bayesic teaches controlling a virtual speed of the virtual vehicle to decrease in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component (youtube video). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 9, 18,
Li discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle from the second direction to the third direction in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component when a distance between the virtual vehicle and a virtual edge exceeds a drift threshold, wherein the virtual edge is an edge of a virtual road surface in the virtual environment; and decreasing a virtual speed of the virtual vehicle in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component when the distance between the virtual vehicle and the virtual edge does not exceed the drift threshold. However, Bayesic teaches turning the head direction of the virtual vehicle from the second direction to the third direction in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component when a distance between the virtual vehicle and a virtual edge exceeds a drift threshold, wherein the virtual edge is an edge of a virtual road surface in the virtual environment; and decreasing a virtual speed of the virtual vehicle in response to the brake operation on the handbrake control component when the distance between the virtual vehicle and the virtual edge does not exceed the drift threshold (youtube video). See claim 1 for motivation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6/2/26 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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights