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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/20/2024. These drawings are accepted as replacement drawing.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings of Figs. 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F and 6A lack certain characters that should have the “prime” character e.g., Fig. 5B “Position marking control X3□” should be
-- Position marking control X3’ --. Fig. 6E properly displays the prime character. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1), (a2) as being anticipated by CN 112569600 to Liu. Examiner is aware this reference appears on its face at the time of publication that it was commonly owned by Applicant at that time but notes the a1 date of 12/23/2020 and a2 date of 3/30/2021. Note: Examiner page and paragraph citations are to the Google translation document made of record by Examiner.
Liu discloses a system, method, and computer-readable medium, comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 15 processor 1501);
memory storing computer instructions (Fig. 15 memory 1502, instructions Page 15, para. 2), that causes:
a display of a map of at least a partial region of a virtual scene on a map interface corresponding to a first virtual object (Fig. 3 step 301 thumbnail map of virtual scene, Page 10, para. 2; also Fig. 10 schematic diagram within a path planning interface which is occupying a portion of the virtual scene both maps corresponding to Fig. 6 virtual object 63),
a display of, in response to at least one second virtual object appearing in the partial region (Fig. 6 virtual object 62), a position marking control (Fig. 6 head controls 61) configured to represent a first position at which the second virtual object is currently located in the map (Fig. 10 location of a head control object 61 at position of object icon 1002), the second virtual object 62 belonging to a same camp as the first virtual object 63 (Page 12, para. 9 “same formation”, see also “same camp” Page 10, para. 5); and
moving the position marking control 1002 from the first position (Fig. 10 object 61 at beginning of path line) to a second position (path of indication icon 1004) in response to a movement operation performed on the position marking control (Fig. 10 hand movement prompt icon); and
transmitting a message to the second virtual object, the message configured to instruct the second virtual object to move to the second position and execute an instruction (Fig. 10 when a trigger operation is performed on a designated trigger control 1005, the first terminal transmits oath information 1004 to a second terminal corresponding to the object icon 1002).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 2-4, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0030431 to Zhang.
Liu discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include before use a selected move message when selecting Fig. 10 1005. However, the reference does not disclose selection from a plurality of type of candidate instructions. One of skill in the art would be aware of the information processing of Zhang.
Zhang teaches of touch controls provided on a graphical user interface with a prompt signal selection control which is a plurality of message type sub-controls (Fig. 7 [0066]). Further according to Zhang, any of these types can be pre-set as a default control ([0066]) which Examiner understands to mean that a default instruction selection can be maintained and that this pre-set is in an automatically selected state unless overridden by the selection of another message type. Zhang also teaches of a long press action that is of a duration which exceeds a preset time length which can be maintained ([0067]) and that message may be a voice prompt, text and the like ([0078]). Zhang invents these features because “whether a convenient and rapid interaction mechanism may be provided for communication of players or not is an important influencing factor for user experiences in such a type of mobile games.” ([0003]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the virtual scene and interface tools/selections of Liu with the litany of features to address and offer solutions which users of mobile games will likely perceive as facilitating convenient and rapid interaction mechanisms important to effective and satisfying game play. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0030431 to Zhang in view of Obsidian Portal, How To: Remove a Campaign Map Marker, posted Aug 25, 2019, last accessed on May 5, 2026 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSsPZnk0kSY.
Liu discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a deletion operation on the position marking control. One of skill in the art would be aware of the campaign editing capabilities of Obsidian Portal.
Obsidian portal discloses a game virtual scene wherein at stop 00:14/00:28 a player is able to access an edit function to remove a campaign marker leading to an option to delete the marker at 00:16/00:28. Thereby, removing the campaign marker and cleaning up the visual landscape and allowing greater focus to present events.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the interface of Liu to include a means to edit the position marker controls when they are no longer relevant or needed on the minimap. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 5-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-18 are 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.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of references are silent as to a ranking of the plurality of candidate instructions; the prediction of a usage probability; a neural network model based on battle data; a display of a position marking control of a non-present virtual object; a batch selection of position marking controls; message transmission controls to unmoved virtual objects; a floating layer covering a partial region of the virtual screen; or querying a database associated with the triggering condition. Upon consideration of CN 113198178, CN 113101634, CN 113813603, CN 113398601, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0076739, 2018/0104591, 2007/0010325, 2019/0070497, and 2019/0070496 made of record but not relied upon as not teaching the above limitations.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
15. 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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights