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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to controlling identifiers, operations, and use of skills (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
displaying an identifier (e.g., name, symbols, marks)
in response to a clicking/tapping operation (e.g., hand/body gestures)
a skill control (e.g., person practicing abilities)
in response to a first sliding operation (e.g., hand/body gestures)
indicating an identifier (e.g., name, symbol)
release at least one target skill at a release position of the first sliding operation (e.g., person body movements)
the at least one target skill being a skill possessed (e.g., person’s skill level)
Claims 1, 15, and 18 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of controlling identifiers, operations, and use of skills.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claim 1 recites “electronic device”; claim 15 recite “apparatus”, “processing circuitry”; claim 18 recite “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “processor”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (virtual scene, first virtual object, second virtual object, target second virtual object, virtual character) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (electronic device, apparatus, processing circuitry, non-transitory computer-readable medium, processor) performing operational data controls are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Regarding claim 9, directed to predict probability, the mere use of machine learning, without recitation of a specific, non-conventional model architecture, training regimen, or computer-resource optimization that improves the computer itself, is treated as abstract and conventional. See SAP America v. InvestPic (advanced statistics still abstract); In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Univ., 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (mathematical algorithms for haplotype phasing ineligible absent specific technological improvement).
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic devices, processors, memories, and operational data controls as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of controlling identifiers, operations, and use of skills, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20140329602 to Hisaoka et al (Hisaoka) in view US Pub. 20180024660 to Wang.
Claims 1, 15, and 18. Hisaoka discloses (as required by claim 15) an apparatus for virtual character state setting, the apparatus comprising:
(as required by claim 18) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform:
(as required by claim 15) processing circuitry configured to:
displaying, (as required by claim 1) by an electronic device (Figs. 1-2, and ¶¶51-64), a virtual scene, wherein the virtual scene includes a first virtual object (Figs. 4-9, and ¶15);
displaying an identifier of at least one second virtual object in response to a clicking/tapping operation on a skill control (¶81 “moves”, “skills”) of the first virtual object (Figs. 8-9, and ¶¶96, 100, 103);
in response to a first sliding operation for the at least one second virtual object, indicating an identifier as selected by the first sliding operation, the first sliding operation being performed by maintaining contact of the clicking/tapping operation (Figs. 8-9, and ¶¶99-101, 103); and
controlling, in response to the first sliding operation being released, the first virtual object to release at least one target skill (¶81 “moves”, “skills”), the at least one target skill being a skill possessed by the at least one second virtual object (Figs. 8-9, ¶¶102, 107 “When the skills are exercised over two or more player characters, these character cards may be linked and selected together so that a combo move as a combination of these skills will be exercised”; “when both attacks from own player characters and attacks from player characters of the other player against enemy characters generate combos, another move with larger attack power than each "special move" (for example, "combo special move" if named) may be able to be exercised”).
However, Hisaoka fails to explicitly disclose
indicating an identifier of at least one target second virtual object as selected by the first sliding operation;
the first virtual object to release at least one target skill at a release position of the first sliding operation (emphasis added).
Wang teaches indicating an identifier of at least one target second virtual object as selected by the first sliding operation; the first virtual object to release at least one target skill at a release position of the first sliding operation (Figs. 8-10, elements 42, 45, ¶¶75-80, 84, 90, 117 “skill-release operation gesture”, “skill-release control halo object”, “relative direction”, “enemy”, e.g., “skill-release operation is performed on the target character object within the skill releasable range according to a release location and/or direction of the skill object obtained by the movement of the virtual joystick object along the dragging of the skill-release operation gesture”, i.e., using the skill slide operation to attack enemy position). The gaming system of Hisaoka would have motivation to use the teachings of Wang in order to use player character’s abilities on specific target characters in a quick and intuitive manner in doing so would provide a convenient way for game users to quickly and easily apply the player character’s abilities during game play.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Hisaoka with the teachings of Wang in order to use player character’s abilities in a quick and intuitive manner in doing so would provide a convenient way for game users to apply the player character’s abilities during game play.
Claims 2, 16, and 19. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches the method further comprises:
determining the identifier of the at least one target second virtual object selected by the first sliding operation based on a sliding trajectory of the first sliding operation passes through the at least one second virtual object (see Wang Figs. 9-10, ¶¶75-80, 84, 90, 117).
Claims 3, 17, and 20. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches the method further comprises:
determining the identifier of the at least one target second virtual object selected by the first sliding operation based on a closed region formed by a sliding trajectory of the first sliding operation (see Wang Figs. 9-10, ¶¶75-80, 84, 90, 117).
Claim 4. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches the method further comprises:
displaying, by using a current contact of the first sliding operation as a center, a skill range indicator control corresponding to the at least one target skill, the skill range indicator control being configured to indicate a range of effect of the at least one target skill (see Wang Figs. 3, 5, 8-10, ¶¶95-99 “wheel”, “range”).
Claim 5. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches wherein a plurality of target skills are provided, the method further comprises:
controlling the first virtual object to release the plurality of target skills one by one or release the plurality of target skills at once from the range of effect indicated by the skill range indicator control (see Hisaoka ¶¶81, 83; see Wang Figs. 8-9, “skill 1”, “skill 2”, etc.).
Claim 8. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches wherein the range of effect of the at least one target skill has an adjustable attribute (see Hisaoka ¶81 “attributes”, “damages”), the method further comprises:
determining a closed region formed by a sliding trajectory of the first sliding operation in the virtual scene as the range of effect of the at least one target skill (see Wang Figs. 9-10, ¶¶95-99 “wheel”, “range”).
Claim 10. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches the method further comprises:
obtaining a sliding direction of the first sliding operation; and
controlling the first virtual object to release the at least one target skill to a third virtual object located within the sliding direction by using the release position as a starting point (see Wang Figs. 8-10, ¶¶75-80, 84, 90, 117, e.g., attack another enemy character).
Claim 11. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches the method further comprises:
emphasizing the identifier of the second virtual object that matches a feature of the first virtual object among the identifiers of the at least one second virtual object; and
de-emphasizing the identifier of the second virtual object that matches the feature of the first virtual object when the at least one target second virtual object selected by the first sliding operation (see Hisaoka Figs. 7-8, and ¶¶99-100 “selection candidate indications”; see Wang Fig. 10, ¶¶78, 84, 90, 117).
Claim 12. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches the method further comprising one of:
determining a specific skill of the target second virtual object as the target skill (see Hisaoka ¶8 “strength and favorite moves (favorite and signature skills one is good at)) of an enemy character or an opponent player”);
determining, as the target skill, a skill released last time by the target second virtual object; and
determining, as the target skill, a skill released a maximum number of times by the target second virtual object.
Claim 13. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches the method further comprises:
emphasizing the skill control of the first virtual object, and displaying a guide identifier, the guide identifier being configured to guide selection of the identifier of the at least one second virtual object (see Wang Figs. 9-10, elements 451, 452, ¶¶77, 80).
Claim 14. Hisaoka in view of Wang teaches the method further comprises:
switching the skill control of the first virtual object from a self mode to an expanded mode in response to a mode switching operation for the skill control of the first virtual object, wherein the expanded mode being a mode in which the first virtual object is controlled to use a skill possessed by another virtual object, and the self mode being a mode in which the first virtual object is controlled to release a skill possessed by the first virtual object (see Hisaoka Figs. 7-9, ¶¶99-103; see Wang Figs. 8-10, ¶¶75-80).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715