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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 8/5/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “shooting prop numbered 11 in FIG. 1A”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 2 states “detection categorycategories”, which seems to be typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.___(2014).
Claims 1-13 are directed to a data processing method in a virtual scene; claims 13-16 are directed to an apparatus for data processing, while claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage; However, all the claims recite steps of presenting a virtual scene on computing device. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart and are directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Addressing the claims under Step 2A, the claims are held to be directed to concepts similar to those found to be abstract, either as outlined in the 2014 lEG/July 2015 Update to Subject matter eligibility, or, as compared to certain decisions rendered by the courts. The claims describe the steps of data visualization. The addition of the limitations that narrow the idea merely aide in the description of the abstract idea and therefore do not render the claims any less abstract.
The concept of identifying and adjusting visibility of information further represents ‘an idea itself’ (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)) inasmuch as it is related to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data. Several precedential cases have found concepts relating to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data to be mere ideas in themselves. One example includes selecting/identifying displayed data, manipulating the data through encoding and decoding processes, and generating new outputs/displays (Recognicorp, LLC, v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01873-RAJ (2017)). The courts have addressed other computerized processes for of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data including data collecting and comparing known information (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC 659 F.3d 1057(Fed. Cir. 2011)), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))] extracting, organizing, storing and transmitting data (Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n. 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc. 654 F.3d 1366, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)).
Therefore, while it is understood that the claims in the current application are not verbatim recitations of the guidelines or case law, the detailed analysis provided above shows how the current claim limitations at issue closely parallel the concepts provided by the guidelines and the precedential case law, and are therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claims 1, 13 & 17 do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; MPEP § 2106.05(f). (2) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; MPEP § 2106.05(h); (3) are insignificant extra solution activity; MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements are limited to generic computer components. The additional elements present in the claims are: “processor”, “storage medium” and “processing circuitry”. Thus, the claim as a whole, including the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/computer components and is not a practical application; See MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the examiner acknowledges the additional limitations (i.e. “processor”, “storage medium” and “processing circuitry”). Additionally, Under Step 2B, no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. For example, the computer components generically claimed to enable the management of the game by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, or (ii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Particularly, In re TLI Communications LLC (Fed Cir, 2016) held that adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible. As such, the recitation of the computer limitations in Claims 1 to 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea of rendering graphics on a computing device.
These limitations however are used for data gathering and presentation and as such merely represents insignificant pre and post solution activity. Even assuming arguendo that the claims are not insignificant pre and post solution activities or mental activities, each of the functions performed by the machinery are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving and processing data, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (see July 2015 Update: Section IV)).
Additionally, these limitations are merely generic recitations of computers and networks performing basic functions and the claims amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The limitations taken as a whole amount to nothing more than implementing the concept of data visualization and information management with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of object visibility on a display device.
Ultimately, the claimed machine/device function solely as an obvious mechanism to achieve the claimed result, failing to impart a meaningful limit on the claim scope [see SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2010)]. The claims at issue here do not rise to overriding the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily performed by the computer, nor do they set forth with any specificity the interactions of the machine itself. Conversely, the claims are only specific in how the computer is used to facilitate the abstract idea itself, using routine and conventional operations of the generic machinery, and are silent as to any detail or property that would transform the otherwise generic machinery into a specialized or special purpose machine. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of applicant's method add nothing that is not already present when they are considered individually. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply convey the idea itself facilitated by generic computing components.
Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xie (US Patent Pub. 20230330534; referred to hereinafter as Xie).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1, 13 & 17: Xie disclose a data processing method in a virtual scene (0005), wherein the method comprises, displaying, in a detection interface of a virtual scene, a detection control corresponding to a configuration of a virtual object (0053-0056 & 0071-0073, detecting player input corresponding to a configuration), wherein the configuration of the virtual object includes at least two detection categories (0086 multiple categories), and each detection category includes at least one detection item (0071 detection item), detecting the configuration of the virtual object in the detection categories when a detection instruction is triggered based on the detection control (0155-0160 detecting the configuration of the virtual object), displaying progress indication information of the configuration of the virtual object, wherein the progress indication information is configured to indicate progress of detecting the configuration of the virtual object in each detection category (figure 5, disclose progress display), and displaying a detection result of each detection item of the virtual object (figures 11-14).
Claims 2, 14 & 18: Xie disclose displaying a progress indicator, wherein the progress indicator includes category identifiers of the detection categories that are sequentially arranged (0085-0086), displaying, in a first style, a category identifier of a detection category in which the configuration detection has been completed (0090-0091) displaying, in a second style, a category identifier of a current detection category and displaying, in a third style, a category identifier of a detection category in which the configuration detection has not been completed (0093-0094).
Claims 3, 15 & 19: Xie disclose receiving the detection instruction in response to a tap operation for the detection control and displaying a configuration modification control, wherein the configuration modification control is configured to modify the configuration of the virtual object (0053 & 0080).
Claims 4, 16 & 20: Xie disclose displaying, in response to a triggering operation for the configuration modification control, a setting interface corresponding to an abnormal detection item in a first detection category (0081-0082).
Claim 5: Xie disclose closing the setting interface in response to a set completion instruction triggered based on the setting interface, and continuing to detect the configuration of the virtual object (0105).
Claim 6: Xie disclose displaying, in response to a set completion instruction based on the setting interface, a category detection interface with a determining control corresponding to a second detection category and displaying, when a triggering operation for the determining control is received, a configuration detection interface that corresponds to a third detection category (0090-0094).
Claim 7: Xie disclose displaying, in the setting interface, a setting result obtained by performing the configuration information corresponding to the abnormal detection item, and a setting control corresponding to the abnormal detection item, wherein the setting control is configured to adjust the setting result (0125).
Claim 8: Xie disclose displaying, based on rankings of the abnormal detection items in the detection result, setting interfaces corresponding to the abnormal detection items (0125).
Claim 9: Xie disclose detecting the configuration of the virtual object in the detection categories in a process of performing a pressing operation and pausing, when the pressing operation is released during the detection, the detection (0089).
Claim 10: Xie disclose displaying a detection guidance, wherein the detection guidance is configured to guide execution of the pressing operation (0071).
Claim 11: Xie disclose when the detection result indicates at least one abnormal detection item in the configuration of the virtual object, automatically displaying a setting interface corresponding to the at least one abnormal detection item (0094).
Claim 12: Xie disclose displaying a detection setting interface, the detection setting interface includes setting option of the virtual object (0071).
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hemby (11,623,135) refers to a swipe input mechanism for a computer-implemented game presented on a touchscreen allows for user-selection of different menu options by swipe gestures in different directions via a swipe menu dedicated to receiving such swipe input. In a third person shooter game or a first-person shooter game user-selection of different character abilities are enabled via the swipe menu. The swipe menu is a floating user interface element that auto-adjusts its on-screen position to register with the position of user touch.
LI (20240269556) refers to method for interaction in a game includes: in response to a preset trigger event, controlling a scene displayed in the graphic user interface to change from a first virtual scene to a second virtual scene of the discussion stage; displaying at least one interaction icon by the graphical user interface; in response to a trigger operation in the at least one interaction icon, controlling a first virtual object model to perform an animation corresponding to the interaction icon corresponding to the trigger operation to a target virtual object model, where the target virtual object model is a model in at least one second virtual object model.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715