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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 06/26/2024 are noted.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 to 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 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 storage 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
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
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).
Here, Independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 10 and 19) recites “1. A virtual identifier processing method, performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
displaying a virtual scene including a first virtual character and a mini-map picture corresponding to the virtual scene;
displaying a first location identifier on the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated, the second virtual character being a virtual character in a different camp from the first virtual character; 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.”
Independent Claim 10 recites: “10. 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 virtual scene including a first virtual character and a mini-map picture corresponding to the virtual scene;
displaying a first location identifier on the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated, the second virtual character being a virtual character in a different camp from the first virtual character; 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.”
Independent Claim 19 recites: “19. 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 virtual scene including a first virtual character and a mini-map picture corresponding to the virtual scene;
displaying a first location identifier on the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated, the second virtual character being a virtual character in a different camp from the first virtual character; 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.”
Overall, the claims can be characterized as organizing and presenting information, displaying information about events, providing navigational indicators and displaying status information with rules. The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, which may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
a set of game rules for organizing and displaying information;
at least one step or instruction or rule for: (i) an observation, judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG; and/or
a method of organizing human activities as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The abstract idea is also similar to that of Planet Bingo, in which a method of managing a bingo game was found to be an abstract idea. Though the instant claims are not limited to bingo games, they encompass the management of games in a similar way. The dependent claims include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites 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:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field ( see MPEP 2106.05(a));
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition ;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b));
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and/or
Applying or using 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 Vanda Memo).
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. Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the additional elements of, for example, a processor, memory, non-transitory computer readable storage medium. However these are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The displaying, canceling, obtaining, and determining steps are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of 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)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim 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 computers 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).
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, 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 dependents as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, the Claims lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim (i.e. a processor, memory, etc.) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have 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.
Here, the displaying, canceling, obtaining, and determining steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, Claims 1, 10, 19, and their dependent claims remain ineligible.
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application.
Claims 2-9 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 11-18 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 10.
Claim 20 inherits the same abstract idea as Claim 19.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
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 1-20 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).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 10, and 19, --- discloses a virtual identifier processing method, performed by an electronic device, … comprising a memory and a processor, … the method comprising:
displaying a virtual scene including a first virtual character and a mini-map picture corresponding to the virtual scene (figs. 1-2 depicts a virtual scene with a virtual character with a mini map);
displaying a first location identifier on the mini-map picture where a second virtual character in the virtual scene is defeated, the second virtual character being a virtual character in a different camp from the first virtual character (figs. 2-4, paras. [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] discloses first virtual character and enemy character with a mini map). However, GE does not explicitly disclose:
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.
In a related invention, Alderman discloses 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, paras. [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.).
GE generally discloses a graphical user interface of the game terminal includes at least pan of game scene and a mini-map, and the method includes: acquiring a position information of a first virtual character in the game scene, by a first game terminal, and determining a direction information according to a preset direction determination rule; sending, by the first game terminal, the position information and the direction information to a second game terminal; and generating a graphical positioning mark in the mini-map on the graphical user interface of the second game terminal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Alderman with the gaming system of GE to further improve team play communication and helps teammates to better cooperate during game play.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claims 11 and 20, GE in view of Alderman discloses 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, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035], Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]); 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, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 12, GE in view of Alderman discloses 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 (GE, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 13, GE in view of Alderman discloses 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, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]); 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, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 14, GE in view of Alderman discloses 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 (GE, figs. 2-5 depicts prompt information for the player character during game play, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035]; Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 15, GE in view of Alderman discloses 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, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0068]-[0070], [0105]);
determining a virtual item with a highest preset item level in the virtual item set as the target virtual item (Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0068]-[0070], [0105]); 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, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0068]-[0070], [0105]).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 16, GE in view of Alderman discloses 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 (Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0068]-[0070], [0105]); or
remaining duration of obtaining the virtual item of the preset type in the virtual item set.
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 17, GE in view of Alderman discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying the first location identifier on a target boundary point of the mini-map picture when the second virtual character is defeated outside the mini-map picture, and the target boundary point being a boundary point determined based on the defeating location of the second virtual character relative to a direction of the mini-map picture (GE, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]);
in response to a first trigger operation on a target map icon, displaying a target map comprising the mini-map picture and the defeating location of the second virtual character (GE, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]);
displaying a map location identifier on the target map, the map location identifier identifying the defeating location of the second virtual character (GE, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]); and
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 (GE, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Clam 18, GE in view of Alderman discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
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 (GE, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]);
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 (GE, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]); 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 (GE, figs. 2-5, [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035] Alderman, figs. 5A – 10, paras. [0004]-[0006]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (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 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 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715