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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 06/25/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed below.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of amendments.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “… A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform …” It should instead read “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, causes an electronic device to perform Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the target map" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the target map" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method, an electronic device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium in claims 1-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations of each independent claim recite a series of steps which can be practically performed in the human mind through mental processes (for example, observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion)(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). In addition, the same claim limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions – specifically following rules for a game, such as what event triggers a mark, where the mark is placed, and what is shown when the play asks to see more. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
The limitations includes the following below in italicized claim language:
Claim 1 recites: “1. (Currently Amended) A virtual identifier processing method, performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
displaying a first graphical user interface including a virtual scene, a target map icon and a mini-map picture corresponding to the virtual scene on a screen, the virtual scene including a first virtual character
displaying a first location identifier on a target boundary point of the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated outside the mini-map picture, the second virtual character being a virtual character in a different camp from the first virtual character (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game); [[and]]
displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated, the virtual item identifier being configured for identifying a location of the virtual item set in the virtual scene (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game); and
in response to a user selection of the target map icon, replacing the first graphical user interface with a second graphical user interface, the second graphical user interface including an enlarged map picture of the virtual scene, wherein the enlarged map includes a first icon corresponding to a first location of the first virtual character in the virtual scene and a second icon corresponding to a second location the second virtual character in the virtual scene in accordance with their relative distance in the virtual scene (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game).
Independent Claim 10 recites: “10. (Currently Amended) An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory having a computer program stored therein that, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform a virtual identifier processing method including:
displaying a first graphical user interface including a virtual scene, a target map icon and a mini-map picture corresponding to the virtual scene on a screen, the virtual scene including a first virtual character
displaying a first location identifier on a target boundary point of the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated outside the mini-map picture, the second virtual character being a virtual character in a different camp from the first virtual character (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game); [[and]]
displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated, the virtual item identifier being configured for identifying a location of the virtual item set in the virtual scene (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game); and
in response to a user selection of the target map icon, replacing the first graphical user interface with a second graphical user interface, the second graphical user interface including an enlarged map picture of the virtual scene, wherein the enlarged map includes a first icon corresponding to a first location of the first virtual character in the virtual scene and a second icon corresponding to a second location the second virtual character in the virtual scene in accordance with their relative distance in the virtual scene (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game).
Independent Claim 19 recites: “19. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform a virtual identifier processing method including:
displaying a first graphical user interface including a virtual scene, a target map icon and a mini-map picture corresponding to the virtual scene on a screen, the virtual scene including a first virtual character
displaying a first location identifier on a target boundary point of the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated outside the mini-map picture, the second virtual character being a virtual character in a different camp from the first virtual character (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game); [[and]]
displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated, the virtual item identifier being configured for identifying a location of the virtual item set in the virtual scene (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game); and
in response to a user selection of the target map icon, replacing the first graphical user interface with a second graphical user interface, the second graphical user interface including an enlarged map picture of the virtual scene, wherein the enlarged map includes a first icon corresponding to a first location of the first virtual character in the virtual scene and a second icon corresponding to a second location the second virtual character in the virtual scene in accordance with their relative distance in the virtual scene (abstract ideas: mental process including observation; and/or certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game).
Each dependent claim incorporates the abstract idea of the claim from which it depends. The limitations of dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 further recite the abstract idea groupings identified above:
wherein the displaying a first location identifier on the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated comprises:
displaying a second location identifier on the mini-map picture, the second location identifier identifying a location of a third virtual character that attacks the second virtual character in the virtual scene, and the third virtual character being a virtual character in a same camp as the first virtual character (abstract ideas: mental process including observation); and
displaying the first location identifier and a direction identifier on the mini-map picture, the direction identifier identifying an attack direction pointing from a location indicated by the second location identifier to a location indicated by the first location identifier (abstract ideas: mental process including observation),
wherein the displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated comprises:
displaying the first location identifier and the virtual item identifier within a preset range of the first location identifier when the second virtual character drops the virtual item set after being defeated; or displaying only the virtual item identifier when the first location identifier satisfies a preset condition and the second virtual character drops the virtual item set after being defeated (certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game; abstract ideas: mental process including observation),
wherein the displaying only the virtual item identifier when the first location identifier satisfies a preset condition and the second virtual character drops the virtual item set after being defeated comprises:
canceling the display of the first location identifier on the mini-map picture when display duration of the first location identifier on the mini-map picture reaches first preset duration (certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game); and
displaying only the virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture, a display position of the virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture being the same as a display position of the first location identifier before the display is canceled (certain methods of organizing human activity – following rules for a game; abstract ideas: mental process including observation),
wherein the displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated comprises:
displaying the virtual item identifier having target prompt information, the target prompt information indicating that the virtual item set comprises a target virtual item satisfying a preset condition in the virtual item set (abstract ideas: mental process including judgment, observation),
wherein the displaying the virtual item identifier having target prompt information comprises:
obtaining preset item levels of virtual items in the virtual item set (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation);
determining a virtual item with a highest preset item level in the virtual item set as the target virtual item (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation); and
displaying the virtual item identifier having the target prompt information, the target prompt information the virtual item set comprises the target virtual item with the highest preset item level (abstract ideas: mental process including evaluation),
wherein the displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated comprises at least one of the following:
displaying the virtual item identifier having first prompt information, the first prompt information indicating whether the virtual item set comprises a virtual item of a preset type; a quantity of virtual items of the preset type in the virtual item set; or remaining duration of obtaining the virtual item of the preset type in the virtual item set (abstract ideas: mental process including observation),
wherein the target boundary point [[being]] is a boundary point determined based on the defeating location of the second virtual character relative to the first location of the first virtual character in the virtual scene and the method further comprises:
displaying a map item identifier on the target map where the second virtual character drops the virtual item set after being defeated, the map item identifier identifying a location of the virtual item set in the virtual scene (abstract ideas: mental process including judgment, observation), and
displaying text information on a social interface of the virtual scene, the text information recording the defeating location of the second virtual character in the virtual scene and item information of the target virtual item in the virtual item set (abstract ideas: mental process including judgment, observation);
displaying a target map in response to a second trigger operation on the text information, the target map comprising an area in the virtual scene represented by the mini-map picture (abstract ideas: mental process including judgment, observation); and
displaying a map location identifier and/or a map item identifier on the target map, the map location identifier identifying on the target map the defeating location of the second virtual character, and the map item identifier identifying, on the target map, the location of the virtual item set in the virtual scene (abstract ideas: mental process including judgment, observation).
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. The recitation of the method being computer-implemented and performed by one or more processors does not remove the claim from the mental-process grouping. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims are an electronic device, a screen, a first graphical user interface, a second graphical user interface, the steps of displaying, receiving a user selection of the target map icon, a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer program.
The electronic device, screen, memory, processor, first graphical user interface, second graphical user interface, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and computer program are recited at a high level of generality and merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea. No particular structure, processor or configuration is claimed. The specification describes the terminal hardware in generic terms. The displaying steps and displayed icons is the mere display of information, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Receiving the user selection is a form of data gathering.
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, these additional elements in the claims do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computer and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment (i.e. video gaming/game scene/environment), such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 10, 19, and their dependent claims, as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1 to 20 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) by the following considerations:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).; and
The examiner also evaluates whether the additional elements add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)), which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)); or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo)).
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified under Prong 2, are generically claimed. The processor displaying, determining, receiving and outputting data are among the functions recognized as conventional in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and the courts have also recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct an activity/game with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, under the Berkheimer standard, the Examiner takes the position that the elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional, supported by the following:
GE, US 2019/0076739 A1 ¶¶ [0009]-[0010] discloses a computer readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, wherein the computer program is executed by a processor to implement the steps of the forgoing information processing method. It also discloses an information processing apparatus for controlling transmission and presentation of interaction information between game terminals, wherein a content presented by a graphical user interface of the game terminal includes at least part of game scene and a mini-map, and the apparatus includes a processor; and a memory for storing executable instructions of the processor.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 to 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
AIA Notice
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0076739 A1 to GE in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0031106 A1 to Alderman et al. (hereinafter Alderman) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0293154 A1 to Qiu et al.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 10 and 19, (Currently Amended) Ge discloses a virtual identifier processing method, performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
displaying a first graphical user interface including a virtual scene, a target map icon and a mini-map picture corresponding to the virtual scene on a screen, the virtual scene including a first virtual character character controlled by a player operating the first game terminal is defined as A, then a small dot, for example, in the mini-map may be used as a position indicator of the virtual character A, and the virtual character moves in the game scene, then the corresponding small dot moves in the mini-map to display a real-time position of the virtual character);
displaying a first location identifier on … the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated outside the mini-map picture, the second virtual character being a virtual character in a different camp from the first virtual character (¶¶ [0006] discloses generating a graphical positioning mark in the mini-map on the graphical user interface of the second game terminal according to the position information and the direction information, wherein the graphical positioning mark comprises a position indicator for indicating the position information and a direction indicator for indicating the direction information. … ¶ [0028] discloses a segment with the position of the virtual character A as an end point is generated on the mini-map, and is pointing to the virtual target D, and a length of the segment may be set as equal to the sight distance of the virtual character A. According to such graphical positioning mark, the orientation information of the enemy is present on the mini-map… ¶ [0031] discloses a coordinate point of the virtual character controlled by the player in the game scene is always located at a center of the mini-map. A shape of the mini-map is generally a square occupying a relatively small area of the graphical user interface, and may also be a rectangle, a circle, or the like. Regardless of the shape, it should be ensured that the farthest sight distance of the virtual character does not exceed a boundary of the mini-map … ¶ [0035] discloses the generated graphical positioning mark for indicating a scope of the enemy position may be a closed region 10, and a shape of the closed region 10 is not limited).
Ge does not explicitly disclose:
… a target boundary point of .. and displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated, the virtual item identifier being configured for identifying a location of the virtual item set in the virtual scene; and
in response to a user selection of the target map icon, replacing the first graphical user interface with a second graphical user interface, the second graphical user interface including an enlarged map picture of the virtual scene, wherein the enlarged map includes a first icon corresponding to a first location of the first virtual character in the virtual scene and a second icon corresponding to a second location the second virtual character in the virtual scene in accordance with their relative distance in the virtual scene.
In a related invention, Alderman discloses a target boundary point of .. (¶¶ [0139], [0322] discloses as a result, a marker 935 is displayed on the right side of the player's screen indicating the direction of the pinged unit towards the right and the dynamically customized distance 173 meters away) … and displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated, the virtual item identifier being configured for identifying a location of the virtual item set in the virtual scene (figs. 3A, 7, ¶¶ [0030], [0075], [0092] discloses for example, in a first context, if a player's character is looking at or near the location of an enemy in the video game, then the player can press a communication button to cause text or audio along the lines of, “Enemy spotted, let's attack here,” to be communicated to other players on the team and for a first type of visual marker to be created at the enemy location to indicate danger. In a second context, if the player's character is looking at an in-game item that can be collected by characters of the player's teammates, then the player can press the same communication button to cause text or audio along the lines of, “There is an item here for you to collect,” and for a second type of visual marker to be created at the item location to indicate the type of item available for pickup.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Alderman’s features with Ge’s bounded mini-map game system to further improve upon the experience and interaction among teammates during gameplay, as Ge discloses this as being one of the main factor to examine the combat skills of the player (¶ [0004]). Applying Alderman’s visual map marker system with Ge’s mini map is therefore no more than the combination of known prior art elements by known methods, yielding the predicable result of teammates being able to see, on the mini map, and communicate where a character went down and where the resulting item set is located. as Ge discloses this as being one of the main factor to examine the combat skills of the player (¶ [0004]).
The combination of Ge and Alderman does not explicitly disclose in response to a user selection of the target map icon, replacing the first graphical user interface with a second graphical user interface, the second graphical user interface including an enlarged map picture of the virtual scene, wherein the enlarged map includes a first icon corresponding to a first location of the first virtual character in the virtual scene and a second icon corresponding to a second location the second virtual character in the virtual scene in accordance with their relative distance in the virtual scene.
In a related invention, Qiu discloses in response to a user selection of the target map icon, replacing the first graphical user interface with a second graphical user interface, the second graphical user interface including an enlarged map picture of the virtual scene, wherein the enlarged map includes a first icon corresponding to a first location of the first virtual character in the virtual scene and a second icon corresponding to a second location the second virtual character in the virtual scene in accordance with their relative distance in the virtual scene (figs. 5 and 7, ¶¶ [0052], [0053] discloses the terminal may first display the global map in the upper right corner of the terminal screen, as shown in the left figure. When the user touches the upper right corner area with a finger, the terminal may further switch to display the global map in a right half screen area, as shown in the right figure. As shown in FIG. 5, the terminal may further display a location of the currently controlled object in the global map, so that the user may directly observe a location relationship between a current location of the currently controlled object and the marker point location. The terminal may further display a current movement direction of the currently controlled object in the global map, so that the user may adjust the current movement direction based on the marker point location in time, to avoid detours and other situations, to arrive at the marker point location as soon as possible … the terminal may mark locations of the currently controlled object and the associated object in the global map. In addition, the terminal may further set a current color of the marker point location to a color of a location marker of an associated object selecting the marker point, so that the user may visually learn of the object selecting the marker point location at a visual angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Qiu’s features marker mapping during gameplay with the combination of Ge/Alderman’s game system to further improve upon the experience and interaction among teammates during gameplay (Qiu, ¶¶ [0003], [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claims 11, and 20, (Original) Ge in view of Alderman and Qiu disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying a first location identifier on the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated comprises:
displaying a second location identifier on the mini-map picture, the second location identifier identifying a location of a third virtual character that attacks the second virtual character in the virtual scene, and the third virtual character being a virtual character in a same camp as the first virtual character (Ge, ¶¶ [0024]-[0025] discloses the relative display positions of the direction indicator and the position indicator displayed in the mini-map are remained to be fixed, and when the position of the position indicator in the mini-map is determined, the position of the direction indicator in the mini-map on the graphical user interface is also determined), ; and
displaying the first location identifier and a direction identifier on the mini-map picture, the direction identifier identifying an attack direction pointing from a location indicated by the second location identifier to a location indicated by the first location identifier (Ge, ¶¶ [0024]-[0025] discloses in a game for simulating a real scene, the player cannot accurately know the precise positions of other virtual targets (such as enemy characters). After the distance indication information is set in the direction indicator, the orientation of the enemy relative to the first virtual character may be informed to other players (such as teammates)).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 12, (Original) Ge in view of Alderman and Qiu disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated comprises:
displaying the first location identifier and the virtual item identifier within a preset range of the first location identifier when the second virtual character drops the virtual item set after being defeated; or displaying only the virtual item identifier when the first location identifier satisfies a preset condition and the second virtual character drops the virtual item set after being defeated (Alderman, ¶ [0082] discloses the enemy icon disappears when the enemy is defeated).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 13, (Original) Ge in view of Alderman and Qiu disclose the method according to claim 3, wherein the displaying only the virtual item identifier when the first location identifier satisfies a preset condition and the second virtual character drops the virtual item set after being defeated comprises:
canceling the display of the first location identifier on the mini-map picture when display duration of the first location identifier on the mini-map picture reaches first preset duration (Ge, ¶ [0036], Alderman, ¶¶ [0072], [0082] discloses the interface unit can be configured to disappear based on a state of an underlying, marked unit); and
displaying only the virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture, a display position of the virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture being the same as a display position of the first location identifier before the display is canceled (Ge, ¶ [0036], Alderman, ¶¶ [0072], [0082] discloses the interface unit can be configured to disappear based on a state of an underlying, marked unit. For example, a visual icon marking an item can disappear when the item is picked up, and a visual icon marking an enemy can disappear if the enemy is defeated).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 14, (Original) Ge in view of Alderman and Qiu disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated comprises:
displaying the virtual item identifier having target prompt information, the target prompt information indicating that the virtual item set comprises a target virtual item satisfying a preset condition in the virtual item set (Alderman, ¶¶ [0072], [0082], [0125] discloses if distance R1 is smaller than distance R2, then the thermite grenade can be identified as the item to be communicated about if the player were to provide the user input for sending a contextually aware communication. Although the target location 601 hits the hitbox of the open item container 603, the open item container is not selected as the item to communicate about because it has a lower priority than the items inside.).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 15, (Original) Ge in view of Alderman and Qiu disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein the displaying the virtual item identifier having target prompt information comprises:
obtaining preset item levels of virtual items in the virtual item set (Alderman, ¶¶ [0068], [0106]-[0108] discloses from among the units within the respective threshold distances, units of the highest priority can be determined);
determining a virtual item with a highest preset item level in the virtual item set as the target virtual item (Alderman, ¶¶ [0072], [0106]-[0108] discloses from among the units within the respective threshold distances, units of the highest priority can be determined); and
displaying the virtual item identifier having the target prompt information, the target prompt information the virtual item set comprises the target virtual item with the highest preset item level (Alderman, ¶¶ [0072, [0106]-[0108] discloses one unit is identified as having a higher priority tier than other units within their respective threshold distances from the target location, then the one unit can be set as the unit to communicate about).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 16, (Original) Ge in view of Alderman and Qiu disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying a virtual item identifier on the mini-map picture where the second virtual character drops a virtual item set after being defeated comprises at least one of the following:
displaying the virtual item identifier having first prompt information, the first prompt information indicating whether the virtual item set comprises a virtual item of a preset type; a quantity of virtual items of the preset type in the virtual item set; or remaining duration of obtaining the virtual item of the preset type in the virtual item set (Alderman, ¶¶ [0072, [0132] discloses the markers 803A, 805A, and 807A can change as time progresses to indicate that the marked events occurred longer ago. For example, the icon at 803A has a more complete border than the icon at 805A to indicate that an enemy unit jumped at the location 803A more recently than at the location 805A. The border of 805A can also change to the border of 805B and fade to a lighter color as time elapses).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 17, (Currently Amended) Ge in view of Alderman and Qiu disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein:
the first location of the first virtual character in the virtual scene (Alderman, ¶¶ [0137], [0139] discloses the video game engine can be configured to track the pings of each player using a first-in-first-out (“FIFO”) queue that has a limit on a maximum quantity of outstanding pings that a player can make at one time, such as three, four, or any other quantity. Other teammates have pinged the tier 1 body shield 907 and the knockdown shield 923. Accordingly, the respective icons 909 and 925 are visible to the player. The other teammates have also pinged a unit outside of the screen towards the right. As a result, a marker 935 is displayed on the right side of the player's screen indicating the direction of the pinged unit towards the right and the dynamically customized distance 173 meters away) and the method further comprises:
displaying a map item identifier on the target map where the second virtual character drops the virtual item set after being defeated, the map item identifier identifying a location of the virtual item set in the virtual scene (Alderman, ¶¶ [0138] discloses visual markers of pinged items, such as icons at the item locations, can disappear under multiple conditions. Some markers can disappear after a timeout duration. Some markers can disappear when the underlying unit disappears. For example, a visual icon marking an item can disappear when the item is picked up, and a visual icon marking an enemy can disappear if the enemy is defeated).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 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, and if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 12, Applicant addresses the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant argues that “the amended claims have integrated the abstract idea into a practical application of switching between the first graphical user interface that includes a mini-map picture with an icon of the second virtual character located on a target boundary point of the mini-map picture even though the second virtual character is out of the sight of the first virtual character and a second graphical user interface that includes an enlarged map for visualizing the actual locations of the first virtual character and the second virtual character.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument recites the claim limitations and characterizes them as a practical application without identifying any technical problem solved or any improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. Reciting what is displayed does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s argument that the pending claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37 (Remarks, p. 12) is not persuasive. In Example 37, eligible claim 1 recited a processor that tracked the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period and automatically relocated the icons on that basis. Eligibility turned on the fact that the claim solved a problem arising specifically in the computer arts – the difficulty of navigating to frequently used applications on a graphical user interface – by an automatic, usage-derived rearrangement. Here, icon placement is dictated by game state, not by any tracked data usage and no problem in the computer arts is identified.
On pages 12-15, Applicant addresses the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Alderman. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant imported into claims 1, 10, and 19, the limitation/subject matter of Claims 8 and 17, which recited “… displaying a first location identifier on a target boundary point of the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated outside the mini-map picture.” This was rejected at p. 17 of the Office Action mailed March 26, 2026. Moving previously rejected dependent subject matter into an independent claim does not distinguish over the art of record. On pages 14-15 and citing figures 4-5, Applicant argues that “neither Ge nor Alderman teaches or suggests the replacement of the mini-map picture with the enlarged map” and that “what is shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 above are both mini-maps as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. Nowhere in Ge or Alderman teaches or suggests the newly added claim features of replacing the first graphical user interface including a mini-map picture that provides a visual indicator of the second virtual character even if it is within the eyesight of the first virtual character with the second graphical user interface including an enlarged map that depicts the actual spatial relationship between the two virtual characters.” Applicant’s arguments are directed to claim limitations/features that were not rejected in the previous rejection. An updated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been provided to address the new claim limitations/amendments.
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 SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights