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
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 6/9/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending, Claims 6 and 16 have been canceled, and Claims 1, 7, 11, and 20 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2003/0064765), herein Koba.
Claims 1, 11, and 20: Koba discloses a computer device, comprising a processor (31) and a memory (33)(non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) having a computer program stored therein, the computer program, wherein executed by the processor (¶ 38-50, 74-80, 120), causing the computer device to implement a method for controlling a virtual object (Abstract, ¶ 121) performed by a terminal device, the method comprising: displaying at least two skill controls (¶ 51, skill controls 104a-104d) sharing a same skill point set (¶ 51, action gauge (103)), the skill point set comprising at least two skill points (¶ 51-53, action gauge includes at least 100 dots (points)), and each skill control corresponding to one skill group (¶ 55, 57-60, skill controls 104a-104b corresponding to physical attacks or that of a kick group, skill controls 104c-104d corresponding to weapons group), each skill group comprising at least one skill (¶ 55, 57-60); determining a target first skill point in the at least two skill points in response to an operation on a first skill control of the at least two skill controls (¶ 51-52, 57-64, emphasis on ¶ 59), wherein the determining the target first skill point in the at least two skill points comprises determining a skill point selected through a skill point selection operation from the at least two skill points as the target first skill point, the skill point selection operation comprising an input performed by a user via a touch device or an external device (¶ 45-46, 49, 94-95, 98, 100, 116-120, Fig. 16 controller (70 or 73) is an external device) for selecting a skill point (Figs. 3-4, 20, ¶ 51-52, 57-64, 66-67, 109-115, the skill point selection operation is the selection of a skill control, wherein the selection of the skill control determines the target skill points selected e.g. if a user selects “armor” (via a command provided by the external game controller) then it is determined that 25 skill points out of the available skill points are selected or if a user selects “weapon” (via a command provided by the external) than it is determined that 40 skill points are selected out of the available skill points.); and controlling a first virtual object to cast a skill corresponding to the target first skill point in the skill group corresponding to the first skill control (¶ 51-52, 57-64).
Claims 2 and 12: Koba discloses wherein a first skill group corresponding to the at least two skill controls comprises at least two skills (¶ 55, 57-60), and different skills comprised in the first skill group correspond to different skill points (¶ 51-52, 57-64, emphasis on ¶ 59).
Claims 3 and 13: Koba discloses displaying an unused skill point in the at least two skill points (Figs. 3-4 display unused skill points, ¶ 57-60).
Claims 4 and 14: Koba discloses displaying an icon of a skill corresponding to a next used skill point in a display region corresponding to the first skill control (Figs. 3-4 displays a region/icons representative of a next used skill points, for example, the “weapon” icon/region represents a skill corresponding to a next used skill point, ¶ 57-60, a display region of the skill control given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation is any portion of the display that helps the user execute skill control(s)).
Claims 5 and 15: Koba discloses wherein the determining a target first skill point in the at least two skill points comprises: determining the target first skill point in the at least two skill points based on a skill point use order, the skill point use order being configured to define a use order of the at least two skill points (Figs. 3-4, 20, ¶ 51-52, 57-64, 66-67, 109-115, Figs. 3-4 illustrates a use order of “armor” (25 points(dots)), “weapon” (40 points(dots)), and “high kick” (30 points(dots)) ).
Claims 8 and 17: Koba discloses wherein the determining a target first skill point in the at least two skill points comprises: determining the target first skill point in the at least two skill points based on real-time game data, the real-time game data comprising at least one of the following: skills casted by the first virtual object for the last N times, attribute information of the first virtual object (¶ 51-52, 57-64, attribute information being the real-time skill controls of the first virtual object available or selected by the user), attribute information of a second virtual object that the first virtual object is battling against, or attribute information of a third virtual object that the first virtual object is assisting, N being a positive integer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2003/0064765), herein Koba in view of League of Legends Wiki (combination of Cooldown - League of Legends Wiki (https://web.archive.org/web/20201111174321/https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Cooldown ) and Cooldown reduction - League of Legends Wiki (https://web.archive.org/web/20201112041625/https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Cooldown_reduction ) both pertaining towards the League of Legends video game), herein LOL.
Claim 9 and 18: Koba teaches the above, in addition to using the skill point to cast a skill (¶ 51-52, 57-64), but lacks suggesting a cool down of the skill is less than a rated cooldown of the skill. However, an analogous art of LOL teaches a cooldown period (Cooldown - League of Legends Wiki – pages 1-4, “Cooldown (abbreviated as CD) is an attribute of champion abilities, items, and runes. It is the amount of time before a champion ability, item, or rune can be used again after activation. When an ability, item, or rune is in this state, it is considered to be "on cooldown". Cooldown is directly affected by cooldown reduction, which will lessen the amount of time an ability, item or rune is unusable after activation”) after casting of a skill that includes a cool down of the skill that is less than a rated cooldown of the skill (Cooldown reduction - League of Legends Wiki – pages 1-7, “Cooldown Reduction (abbreviated as CDR) is a champion statistic that either reduces the cooldown of champion abilities, or the amount of time before an ability can be used again after activation, by a percentage. This stat is tracked and can be seen in the champion stats tooltip. This cooldown reduction is different than the cooldown reduction for summoner spells and items, with the value not being visibly tracked in game. Items and runes may reduce the cooldown for summoner spells and other items.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and/or device of Koba with the cooldown and/or cooldown reduction means of LOL to provide a more interactive gaming experience. Such a modification making the game more challenging due to the availability/unavailability of abilities/skills within the game; thereby making the game more enjoyable.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2003/0064765), herein Koba in view of League of Legends Wiki (combination of Mana regeneration _ League of Legends Wiki _ Fandom (https://web.archive.org/web/20220412155846/https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Mana_regeneration ) and [7.20] Ryze Infinite Mana Regeneration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLOCIiBDe_0 ) both pertaining towards the League of Legends video game), herein LOL 2.
Claim 10 and 19: Koba teaches the above, further comprising: when a number of unused skill points in the skill point set is less than a rated maximum number, increasing the number of unused skill points in the skill point set if a skill point restoration condition is satisfied, the skill point restoration condition comprising at least one of the following: first duration is reached since a skill point is used last time, second duration is reached since a skill point is restored last time, the first virtual object causes damage satisfying a first condition to an enemy virtual object, a camp to which the first virtual object belongs causes damage satisfying a second condition to an enemy virtual object, the first virtual object obtains a first gain effect, or the camp to which the first virtual object belongs obtains a second gain effect. However, an analogous art of LOL 2 teaches a further comprising: when a number of unused skill points in the skill point set is less than a rated maximum number (represented by the blue bar above the virtual character and the blue bar at bottom of game interface)([7.20] Ryze Infinite Mana Regeneration – time 0:08 – 0:11, 0:28 – 0:39, illustrates when a number of unused skill points in the skill point set is less than a rated maximum number), increasing the number of unused skill points in the skill point set if a skill point restoration condition is satisfied, the skill point restoration condition comprising at least one of the following: first duration is reached since a skill point is used last time (Mana regeneration _ League of Legends Wiki _ Fandom – pages 1-9, “Mana regeneration (also known as MP5) is a stat similar to health regeneration which determines the amount of mana a champion regenerates over a five-second period. This happens in half-second intervals”, [7.20] Ryze Infinite Mana Regeneration - time 0:28-0:39 illustrates increasing the number of unused skill points in the skill point set based on a first duration being reached (half-second intervals) since a skill point is used last time), second duration is reached since a skill point is restored last time, the first virtual object causes damage satisfying a first condition to an enemy virtual object, a camp to which the first virtual object belongs causes damage satisfying a second condition to an enemy virtual object, the first virtual object obtains a first gain effect ([7.20] Ryze Infinite Mana Regeneration - time 0:08- 0:22 - user decreases the skill points due to execution of skills of the virtual character down to 199/473 points the virtual character obtains or uses an item to achieve a virtual gain effect up to a maximum of 473/473), or the camp to which the first virtual object belongs obtains a second gain effect. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and/or device of Koba with the skill point regeneration means of LOL 2 to provide a more interactive gaming experience. Such a modification making the game more challenging due to the ability to regain of abilities/skills within the game; thereby making the game more enjoyable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in part.
Remarks concerning rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments/arguments filed 6/9/26
Remarks concerning rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
The applicant argues that the prior art of Kobayashi fails to teach the claims amendments pertaining to at least “wherein the determining the target first skill point in the at least two skill points comprises determining a skill point selected through a skill point selection operation from the at least two skill points as the target first skill point, the skill point selection operation comprising an input performed by a user via a touch device or an external device for selecting a skill point”.
Applicant argues:
“The Examiner has not shown that Kobayashi discloses a skill point set shared across multiple skill controls, selecting a skill point from such a shared set across multiple skill controls, and selecting a skill point form such as shared set in response to a user input. Rather, Kobayashi discloses direct activation of skills or functions, not selection of a skill point within a shared skill point framework as required by claim 1. Claims 11 and 20 have been amended accordingly.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kobayashi teaches wherein the determining the target first skill point in the at least two skill points comprises determining a skill point selected through a skill point selection operation from the at least two skill points as the target first skill point, the skill point selection operation comprising an input performed by a user via a touch device or an external device (¶ 45-46, 49, 94-95, 98, 100, 116-120, Fig. 16 controller (70 or 73) is an external device) for selecting a skill point (Figs. 3-4, 20, ¶ 51-52, 57-64, 66-67, 109-115, the skill point selection operation is the selection of a skill control, wherein the selection of the skill control determines the target skill points selected e.g. if a user selects “armor” (via a command provided by the external game controller) then it is determined that 25 skill points out of the available skill points are selected or if a user selects “weapon” (via a command provided by the external) than it is determined that 40 skill points are selected out of the available skill points.)
Kobayahi teaches a skill point set shared across multiple skill controls (Fig. 2 illustrates a skill point set (103) shared across multiple skill point set, ¶ 50, 52-53 – there are 100 dots or skill points shared across multiple skill controls/actions ), selecting a skill point from such a shared set across multiple skill controls (¶57-64, 66-67, 98 – when selecting a particular command a certain amount of skill points are selected within the skill point set or action gauge 103, for an example selecting an “armor” action (skill control/command) results in the selection of 25 dots/points of the 100 dots/points, and the next selection of an “weapon” action (skill control/command) results in the selection of the next 40 dots/points of the 100 dots/points, and selection “high kick” action (skill control/command) results in the selection of the next 30 dots/points of the 100 dots/point), and selecting a skill point form such as shared set in response to a user input (Kobayashi discloses a user input (¶ 45-46, 49, 94-95, 98, 100, 116-120, Fig. 16 controller (70 or 73) is an external device) of the action/skill that results in the selection of the corresponding points to the skills, wherein action of the skills does not occur until the corresponding skill points are consumed (see above)). Kobayashi’s selection of the commands via a user input directly causes the selection of the skill points which giving it’s broadest reasonable interpretation meets the requirements of the claimed invention.
Remarks concerning rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
The rejections of claims 9-10 and 18-19 are maintained and/or rejected herein in view of the clarified rejections of Claims 1 and 11.
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 TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (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 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights