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 virtual vehicle control method in claims 1-15, a virtual vehicle control apparatus in claims 16-18, 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
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 16 and 19) recites “1. A virtual vehicle control method, performed by a computing device simulating vehicle movement in a virtual environment, and comprising:
displaying, by the computing device comprising a control device, a virtual vehicle in a flying state in a virtual environment, the flying state being a state in which the virtual vehicle is not in contact with a ground of the virtual environment;
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to change from the flying state to a landing state, the landing state being a state in which the virtual vehicle is in contact with the ground of the virtual environment;
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward at a decelerating rate when the virtual vehicle is in a throttle released state at a landing moment of the virtual vehicle, the landing moment being a moment at which the flying state is changed to the landing state; and
performing one of:
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward at an accelerating rate with an additional first power in response to a first operation of the control device within a first duration from the landing moment, at least a portion of the control device corresponding to a throttle control of the virtual vehicle; or
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward at an accelerating rate with an additional third power in response to an operation for a charge control and the first operation for of the control device for throttle control within the first duration from the landing moment, the operations for the charge control and the throttle control being triggered sequentially. ”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 16 and 19, generally encompass the abstract ideas, for example as, each of at least one step or instruction or rule for: performing a game based on timing of player input. The claims generally encompass the steps of receiving user control inputs (i.e. throttle, brake, charge), detecting state transitions (i.e. flying to landing), applying conditional rules based on timing, displaying prompts, etc. 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, 16, and 19 recite the additional elements of, for example, a computing device, a control device, a processor, and a memory. However these are recited so generically 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 controlling and displaying steps of the claims 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, 16, and 19 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, 16, and 19 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, 16, 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 computing device, a control device, a processor, and a 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.
Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the displaying and controlling 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, 16, 19, and their dependent claims remain ineligible.
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application.
Claims 2-15 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claims 17-18 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 16.
Claim 20 inherit 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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 4-5, 11-12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Flying Car Simulator Full Gameplay Walkthrough, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlZauhbmq_s, published July 14, 2019.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 16 and 19, Flying Car recites a virtual vehicle control method, performed by a computing device simulating vehicle movement in a virtual environment, and comprising:
displaying, by the computing device comprising a control device, a virtual vehicle in a flying state in a virtual environment, the flying state being a state in which the virtual vehicle is not in contact with a ground of the virtual environment (timestamp 0:24 – 2:49 depicts the virtual vehicle (car) airborne in a flying state within the game);
PNG
media_image3.png
812
1345
media_image3.png
Greyscale
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to change from the flying state to a landing state, the landing state being a state in which the virtual vehicle is in contact with the ground of the virtual environment (timestamp 2:52-3:10 show the moment the vehicle goes from a flying state to a landing state);
PNG
media_image4.png
781
1283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward at a decelerating rate when the virtual vehicle is in a throttle released state at a landing moment of the virtual vehicle, the landing moment being a moment at which the flying state is changed to the landing state (timestamp 2:45-2:56, 7:09-7:33 depicts the car decelerating as it is going in a landing state); and
performing one of:
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward at an accelerating rate with an additional first power in response to a first operation of the control device within a first duration from the landing moment, at least a portion of the control device corresponding to a throttle control of the virtual vehicle (timestamp 2:56-3:10, 7:31-7:40 depicts the vehicle accelerating after it lands and moving(; or
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward at an accelerating rate with an additional third power in response to an operation for a charge control and the first operation for of the control device for throttle control within the first duration from the landing moment, the operations for the charge control and the throttle control being triggered sequentially.
Regarding Claim 4, Flying Car depicts the method according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises:
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward with the standard power when the second operation ends (timestamp 14:01-14:31 depicting the virtual vehicle moving forward); or
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward with the standard power and displaying first prompt information when effective duration of the additional second power reaches a rated maximum value, the first prompt information being configured for indicating that a full-throttle trick is triggered using the control device, and the full-throttle trick being a trick in which the effective duration of the additional second power reaches the rated maximum value.
Regarding Claim 5, Flying Car depicts the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to change from a throttle held state to the throttle released state in response to an operation for a first brake control when the virtual vehicle is in the flying state (timestamp 13:43-15:44 depicts the virtual vehicle changing from landing state to flying state).
Regarding Claim 11, Flying Car depicts the method according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises:
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward with the standard power when the second operation ends (timestamp 2:56-3:10); or
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to move forward with the standard power and displaying first prompt information when effective duration of the additional fourth power reaches a rated maximum value, the first prompt information being configured for indicating that a full-throttle trick is triggered, and the full-throttle trick being a trick in which the effective duration of the additional fourth power reaches the rated maximum value.
Regarding Claim 12, Flying Car discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
controlling, by the computing device, the virtual vehicle to change from a throttle held state to the throttle released state in response to an operation for a first brake control when the virtual vehicle is in the flying state (timestamp 2:56-3:10).
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