Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/763,860

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INTERACTION IN VIRTUAL SCENE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Jul 03, 2024
Priority
Aug 01, 2022 — CN 202210918514.X +1 more
Examiner
ELISCA, PIERRE E
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
1402 granted / 1555 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1569
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§103
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1555 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . This communication is to response to Application No. 18/763,860 filed on 07/03/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and has been examined. Information Disclosure Statement IDSs are considered. The drawings filed on 07/03/2024 are noted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 7. Claims 1, 13, 20, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitation of: “a method for teleporting virtual objects in a virtual scene”. The limitation of teleporting virtual objects in a virtual scene, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using an electronic device to display a virtual object and a target interactable object in a first virtual scene corresponding to a first map; in response to a target interaction instruction by a user of the electronic device, controlling the virtual object to perform a target interaction operation on the target interactable object to perform both displaying and controlling steps. The electronic device in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer configured to display a virtual object and a target interactable object in a first virtual scene corresponding to a first map) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. In the instant case, the 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 element of when the target interaction operations is performed, teleporting at least one of the virtual object and the target interactable object to a second virtual scene corresponding to a second map, the second virtual scene being different from the first virtual scene. Thus, taken alone, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Conclusion 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 5:30PM. Hoteler. 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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12667771
PICKLEBALL PLAYER STATISTICS TRACKING DEVICE AND METHOD
1y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12656126
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12658071
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE VIRTUAL SIGN LANGUAGE AVATAR INTERPRETER
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12658007
SYSTEM, METHOD AND INTERFACE FOR PLAYING AN ONLINE POKER GAME UTILIZING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12651534
HOLISTIC STUDENT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK BASED ON MULTI-TASK LEARNING
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.4%)
2y 3m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1555 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month