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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 7/15/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11, 13-14, 20.
Currently, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/17/26 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 16,-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong (2018/0369693) in view of Eric Richards (NPL: A Terrain Minimap with SlimDX and DirectX 11).
Re Claim 1,
Rong discloses a method for selecting a virtual object on a user interface of a terminal, performed by the terminal (¶¶0004, 0058-0061, 0064), the method comprising:
displaying a user interface corresponding to a virtual environment, wherein the user interface includes a first virtual object located in the virtual environment (Fig 2, ¶0038; the user interaction interface includes a first virtual character, i.e., a first virtual object);
obtaining a predefined execution area of a first operation of the first virtual object within the virtual environment (¶0034; the system determines a predetermined distance range for skill release, i.e., a predefined execution area);
a visible boundary scope of the virtual environment, the visible boundary scope containing contents that are visible on the user interface (Fig 2, ¶¶0034, 0038; the user interaction interface includes targeted virtual characters, wherein each virtual character is visible to the player);
determining, based on an intersection area of the predefined execution area and the visible boundary scope, an effective execution area of the first operation within the virtual environment; and determining, based on the effective execution area, a target virtual object (Fig 1-2, ¶¶0034, 0038; the system determines a second control event for the target selection control that a virtual character is selected in real time from a predetermined distance range, which may not only be an area reachable for skill release but also a range reachable for a visual field of the player, in other words, an effective execution area where the predetermined distance is a range reachable for a visual field).
Rong does not explicitly disclose determining, based on parameters of a virtual camera of the virtual environment, coordinates of feature points of a visible boundary scope of the virtual environment and obtaining the visible boundary scope based on the coordinates of the feature points.
However, Richards teaches determining, based on parameters of a virtual camera of the virtual environment, coordinates of feature points of a visible boundary scope of the virtual environment and obtaining the visible boundary scope based on the coordinates of the feature points (pg 2-13; intersection points are calculated and store them in points[], wherein points define the main camera’s viewing extent and terrain minimaps for games, in addition, the user can use the minimap to move around the terrain). Richards further teaches such a configuration allows the user to move around the terrain very quickly and easily (pg 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Richards into the virtual environment of Rong in order to allows the user to move around the virtual environment very quickly and easily.
Re Claims 2, 12,
Rong discloses identifying the intersection area of the predefined execution area and the visible boundary scope as the effective execution area of the first operation (Fig 2, ¶¶0034, 0038).
Re Claims 6, 16,
Rong discloses obtaining the location information of the first virtual object within the virtual environment; and, determining, based on the location information and a predefined execution distance of the first operation, the predefined execution area of the first operation in the virtual environment (Fig 2, ¶¶0034, 0038).
Re Claims 7, 17,
Rong discloses determining a second virtual object within the effective execution area as a candidate virtual object; selecting the target virtual object from one or more candidate virtual object based on an object selection criteria (Fig 2, ¶¶0034, 0038).
Re Claims 9, 19,
Rong discloses when the first operation is identified as an attack operation, identifying a virtual object, which belongs to a different camp from the first virtual object, in the effective execution area as the candidate virtual object (Fig 2, ¶¶0034, 0038).
Re Claims 11, 20,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong (2018/0369693) in view of Eric Richards (NPL: A Terrain Minimap with SlimDX and DirectX 11), further in view of Tsutsumizaki et al. (2020/0197809).
Re Claim 10,
Rong as modified by Richards discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on when the first operation is identified as a gain operation, identifying a virtual object which belongs to the same camp with the first virtual object. However, Tsutsumizaki teaches when the first operation is identified as a gain operation, identifying a virtual object which belongs to the same camp with the first virtual object (Fig 9-12, ¶¶0086-0090, 0095-0097, 0104-0107; the system determines a friend character in the virtual field, i.e., a virtual object which belongs to the same camp, wherein the player character can select a game message command such as attack or defend, i.e., a gain operation). Tsutsumizaki further teaches such a configuration improves the cooperation between players (¶¶0004-0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Tsutsumizaki into the game system of Rong as modified by Richards in order to improve the cooperation between players.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8, 13-15, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights