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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 6/18/2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ are attached.
The Drawings filed 6/18/2024 are noted.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
The claims are drawn to process, apparatus and CRM categories.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Representative Claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea, noting that independent Claims 7 & 13 recite substantially similar limitations but being drawn to different statutory classes.
Claim 1: “A virtual object control method performed by a computer device, the method comprising: obtaining a performance grade and a current frame rate of a terminal running a target game, the performance grade being configured for indicating quantities of virtual objects displayable by the terminal for different level attributes, and each level attribute being configured for identifying an amount of display resources consumed when the terminal displays a virtual object with the level attribute; updating the performance grade according to the current frame rate, to obtain an updated performance grade; updating a level attribute of each virtual object in the target game according to the updated performance grade, to obtain an updated level attribute of the virtual object; determining a display parameter corresponding to the virtual object according to the updated level attribute of the virtual object; and performing display control on the corresponding virtual object on the terminal by using the display parameter corresponding to the virtual object.”
The italicized limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG1, “certain methods of organizing human activity”, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The claims are drawn to controlling display of virtual objects during a game. The claims require determining display resources for rendered objects. The claims require updating performance requirements. The claims determine updated virtual object requirements. The claims then determine display parameters and perform rendering on a GUI.
Further, to the extent the claims are drawn to displaying objects in a game, this represents interactions between players and a social activity, i.e., the users playing the game in which virtual objects are rendered.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations drawn to a computing system with a transceiver, processor, bus system and memory, collectively, a GUI.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional computer implementation.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract process. However, these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, the prior art relied on in the prior art rejection, infra, shows the conventionality of GUIs used to implement games. These elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Additionally, Applicant’s Specifications acknowledge that generic devices including personal computers are used to implement the claimed invention.2
It is noted that Applicant’s Specifications disclose several differences between general computing devices and electronic gaming machines.3 However, the present claims do not recite any features distinguishing them from general computing devices. Rather, the claims require gaming systems with processors and memory. And, as described above, this only requires GUIs.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions provide conventional computer implementation of an abstract process.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they only recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit precedent controls4:
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raymond (U.S. Pub. No.: 2022/0096931 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 7 & 13: Raymond discloses a computer device with memory, transceiver, processor, bus system, CRM and method, (Abstract, ¶¶ 22, 23), comprising: obtaining a performance grade, (¶¶ 11, 33, 34, 38), and a current frame rate of a terminal running a target game, (¶ 47), the performance grade being configured for indicating quantities of virtual objects displayable by the terminal for different level attributes, (¶ 22), and each level attribute being configured for identifying an amount of display resources consumed when the terminal displays a virtual object with the level attribute, (¶¶ 40, 41).
Raymond discloses updating the performance grade according to the current frame rate, to obtain an updated performance grade, (e.g., Fig. 2A and related descriptions); updating a level attribute of each virtual object in the target game according to the updated performance grade, to obtain an updated level attribute of the virtual object, (e.g., Fig. 2A and related description); determining a display parameter corresponding to the virtual object according to the updated level attribute of the virtual object, (¶¶ 40, 41); and performing display control on the corresponding virtual object on the terminal by using the display parameter corresponding to the virtual object, (Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 40, 41).
Regarding Claims 5, 11 & 17: Raymond discloses decreasing the performance grade if the current frame rate is less than a preset frame rate value, to obtain the updated performance grade; or keeping the current performance grade of the terminal unchanged if the frame rate is greater than or equal to a preset frame rate value, (e.g., Figs. 2A/2B and related descriptions).
Regarding Claims 6, 12 & 18: Raymond discloses wherein the level attribute comprises a first level and a second level; and the determining a display parameter corresponding to the virtual object according to the updated level attribute of the virtual object comprises: determining that the display parameter corresponding to the virtual object comprises a fluency display parameter, a realism display parameter, and a fineness display parameter if the updated level attribute of the virtual object is the first level; or determining that the display parameter corresponding to the virtual object comprises a fluency display parameter if the updated level attribute of the virtual object is the second level, (e.g., Figs. 6, 7 and 11.
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See MPEP 2106
2 Specifications: [0171] When the integrated unit is implemented in the form of a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, the integrated unit may be stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Based on such an understanding, the technical solutions of this application essentially, or the part contributing to the related art, or all or some of the technical solutions may be implemented in a form of a computer software product. The computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions for instructing a computer device (which may be a personal computer, a server, a network device, or the like) to perform all or some of the operations of the methods described in the embodiments of this application. The foregoing storage medium includes: any medium that can store program code, such as a USB flash drive, a removable hard disk, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a magnetic disk, or an optical disc. (Emphasis Added.)
3 Specifications, e.g., ¶¶ 123-130.
4: Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015)