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 judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 17 and 20 recite(s):
An interaction processing method for a virtual scene, the method comprising:
displaying the virtual scene and at least one group control element,
displaying identifiers of a plurality of groups when a first user selection operation is performed via a touch operation on a first group control element of the at least one group control element, the plurality of groups being determined based on a group assignment scheme associated with the first group control elements;
displaying, based on the touch operation including a first sliding operation passing through an identifier of a first group of the plurality of groups, the identifier of the first group in a selected state, the first sliding operation starting from an initial location of the first user selection operation while the first user selection operation is maintained; and
displaying a travelling route of the first group in the selected state based on a released location of the first sliding operation when the user selection operation is released, the travelling route being set through the first sliding operation.
17. An information processing apparatus for a virtual scene, the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
display the virtual scene and at least one group control element, the virtual scene including a plurality of groups;
display identifiers of a plurality of groups when a first user selection operation is performed via a touch operations on a first group control element of the at least one group control element, the plurality of groups being determined based on a group assignment scheme associated with the first group control element;
display, based on the touch operation including a first sliding operation passing through an identifier of a first group of the plurality of groups, the identifier of the first group in a selected state, the first sliding operation starting from an initial location of the first user selection operation while the first user selection operation is maintained; and
display a travelling route of the first group in the selected state based on a released location of the first sliding operation when the user selection operation is released, the travelling route being set through the first sliding operation.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform:
displaying a virtual scene and at least one group control element;
displaying identifiers of a plurality of groups when a first user selection operation is performed via a touch operation on a first group control element of the at least one group control element the plurality of groups being determined based on a group assignment scheme associated with the first group control element;;
displaying, based on the touch operation including a first sliding operation passing through an identifier of a first group of the plurality of groups, the identifier of the first group in a selected state, the first sliding operation starting from an initial location of the first user selection operation while the first user selection operation is maintained; and
displaying a travelling route of the first group in the selected state based on a released location of the first sliding operation when the user selection operation is released, the travelling route being set through the first sliding operation.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “displaying”/ ”display”, “an information processing apparatus”, “ processing circuitry” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people or in the mind of a user. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a type of game rule where the user selects a game element and move the game element along a travelling route. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “displaying”/ ”display”, “an information processing apparatus”, “ processing circuitry” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
The “displaying”/ ”display”, “an information processing apparatus”, “ processing circuitry” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 32-33 and 47).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-16 and 18-19 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant provided argument of the current amendment provides an improvement to the functioning of the computing device or technological field. For a finding of an improvement to the functioning of the computing device or technological field the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. However, applicant’s argument is silent on the type of improvement could be expected in view of the current amendment. A review of the specifications fails to provide evidence of the improvement of the computing device or technological field. Instead, the specification only provides evidence of improving user experience of the interface (see paragraph 139 and 173). Improvement to the user experience is unlikely can be used as evidence of improvement to functioning of the computing device or technological field. Accordingly, the rejection on claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 are warranted and shall be maintained.
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 ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights