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 07/29/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are now pending.
Examiner Note
The Remarks at page 11 states that “Claims 5, 14, and 15 have been canceled” and that “Claims 1-13 and 16-22 remain pending.” The Listing of Claims states otherwise. Claim 5 is presented as “5. (Original)” with the full text of the claim presented. Claim 12 is presented as “12. (Canceled)” with no text. Claims 14 and 15 are presented as “(Canceled),” consistent with the Remarks. The Remarks are additionally inconsistent internally, asserting both that Claim 5 is canceled and that Claims 1-13 remain pending. Under 37 CFR 1.121(c), the listing of claims replaces all prior versions and governs. For purposes of this action, the pending claims are 1-11, 13, and 16-22. Claims 12, 14, and 15 are canceled.
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 1-11, 13, and 16-22 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.
Claims 1, 16, and 19 recites “an operation for a charge control and a first operation of the control device for throttle control” – supplying an article for the charge control but not for the throttle control. Claims 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 18, and 22 subsequently recite “the throttle control.” Applicant should amend to recite “for a throttle control.” Dependent 2-11, 13, 17-18, and 20-22 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “…there is a second operation of the at least a portion of the control device corresponding to the throttle control.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent for this limitation/phrase was deleted in the prior Claim 1, which recited “…at least a portion of the control device corresponding to a throttle control of the virtual vehicle.” Claim 1 as amended contains no recitation of “at least a portion of the control device.” Claim 3 therefore refers back to a limitation that no longer exists in the Claim from which it depends.
Claim 18 recites “… the at least a portion of the control device corresponding to the throttle control.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent for this limitation/phrase was deleted in the prior Claim 16. Claim 18 therefore refers back to a limitation that no longer exists in the Claim from which it depends.
Applicant amended Claims 2 and 9 to change “at an accelerating rate with an additional power” to “at the accelerating rate with the additional power.” The corresponding amendment was not made to Claims 17 and 20, which still recite “the controlling the virtual vehicle to move forward at an accelerating rate with an additional power comprises.” It is therefore unclear whether Claims 17 and 20 further limit the accelerating rate step recited in Claims 16 and 19 respectively or introduce a different accelerating rate step. The subsequent recitation of “the additional power” in the body of each claim compounds the ambiguity, as no “additional power” has been established within the claim.
Prior Art
Regarding amended Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims and dependent claims, the closest prior art appears to be U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0187393 A1 to Huang et al. Huang generally discloses receiving an operation start event with respect to a target interaction control that is provided on a user interface of an application while a virtual vehicle in a virtual world in the application is in a normal traveling state; controlling, according to the operation start event, the virtual vehicle to enter a drift state in the virtual world; and after an operation end event with respect to the target interaction control is received, controlling the virtual vehicle to remain in the drift state based on an angle between a vehicle head direction and a traveling direction being greater than or equal to a first threshold. However, Huang, in combination or taken alone, fails to disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest ….. “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 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]] a first operation [[for]] of the control device for throttle control within [[the]] a first duration from the landing moment, the operations for the charge control and the throttle control being triggered sequentially.” As such, for at least these reasons, Examiner have found these limitations in combination with the other limitations of the claim are neither anticipated by nor obvious over the closest prior art.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered.
As an initial matter, the objection to the title of the specification is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments at pages 11-13 are persuasive regarding the rejections under 35 USC § 101. The analogy to SME Example 38 is persuasive. The pending claims recite specific technical control operations for vehicle simulation that cannot be performed mentally-one cannot mentally simulate a virtual vehicle changing from a flying state to a landing state, control the vehicle to decelerate when in a throttle released state, and apply additional power in response to an operation for a charge control and a first operation of the control device for throttle control.
In addition, the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application by providing a specific improvement to vehicle simulation technology. As described in the specification, "a control manner of the virtual vehicle may be overly simplistic, resulting in poor authenticity." Specification, at paragraph [0004]. The claimed invention addresses this technical problem by providing a method where "a landing speed-up process of a vehicle in the real world can be simulated, and authenticity of the virtual vehicle may be improved in a control process." Specification, at paragraph [0029].
Per MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), claims that improve technology are not directed to a judicial exception. The specification describes that "richness and authenticity of a control manner of a virtual vehicle can be improved" through the claimed technical solution. Specification, at paragraph [0005]. The claims reflect this improvement by reciting specific technical steps for controlling vehicle behavior during landing transitions. This is not merely applying an abstract idea on a computer, but rather a specific technical improvement to vehicle simulation technology. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments at pages 13-14 and amendments are persuasive regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
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
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights