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 .
Response to Arguments & Amendment
Applicant’s Remarks filed 7/9/2026 have fully considered and are persuasive. The Section 101 rejection is withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s Remarks filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Specifically, the amendment resulted in further search yielding a reference to Kmita et al. (U.S. 2022/0047947 A1), necessitating the new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment is addressed below.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 13-16, 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvin et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2010/0009733 A1) in view of Kmita et al. (U.S. 2022/0047947 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13 & 20: Garvin discloses an information processing apparatus, CRM and method, (Abstract, ¶¶ 24, 36), comprising: displaying a game scene of a first virtual character in a game application, (Fig. 3); displaying, by processing circuitry, a target marker based on an attack event between the first virtual character and a second virtual character being generated in the game application, (Fig. 3, 320, 330 and related descriptions), the target marker being configured to mark the second virtual character in the game scene when the attack event is generated; and moving the target marker in accordance with movement of the second virtual character, (Fig. 2, 240, Fig. 3, 320, 330 and related descriptions).
Regarding the amendment: Garvin discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit, the game scene includes a second virtual character and, determining whether an attack event is generated between the first virtual character and the second virtual character in the game scene, the attack event indicating that the first virtual character attacks or is attacked by the second virtual character.
However, in a related invention, Kmita teaches these features in at least Figures 5-7, 18 and the related descriptions. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided Kmita’s interaction interface in Garvin’s system for the purpose of enabling players to accurately determine combatant status and gauge damage assessments This yields the predictable results of aiming at multiple enemies and suggesting when a retreat event may be desirable.
Regarding Claims 2, 6, 14, 18: Garvin discloses wherein the attack event is the first virtual character being attacked by the second virtual character, and the target marker is configured to indicate that the first virtual character is attacked by the second virtual character, or vice vera, (Fig. 3 and related descriptions.)
Regarding Claims 3, 15: Garvin discloses displaying at least one of a first prop marker or a first camp marker in the game scene, wherein the first prop marker is configured to mark, in the game scene, a virtual prop used by the second virtual character when the second virtual character attacks the first virtual character, and the first camp marker is configured to mark, in the game scene, a camp of the second virtual character when the second virtual character attacks the first virtual character, (Fig. 2, 240-270, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claims 4, 8, 16: Garvin discloses displaying the target marker according to at least one of a virtual hit point of the first virtual character or a number of times the first virtual character is attacked by the second virtual character, displaying the target marker comprises: displaying the target marker according to at least one of a virtual hit point of the second virtual character attacked by the first virtual character or a number of times the second virtual character is attacked by the first virtual character, (Fig. 2, 240, Fig. 3, 320, 330 and related descriptions).
Claims 5, 7, 9-12, 17 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvin et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2010/0009733 A1) in view of Kmita et al. (U.S. 2022/0047947 A1) and Fan (U.S. Pub. No.: 2020/0338449 A).
Regarding Claims 5, 7, 17 & 19: Garvin discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not make explicit, displaying a plurality of target markers in a one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of second virtual characters when the first virtual character is attacked by the plurality of second virtual characters; and canceling the display of the target marker corresponding to one of the plurality of second virtual characters when the one of the plurality of second virtual characters moves outside a field of view of the first virtual character, displaying at least one of a second prop marker or a second camp marker in the game scene, the second prop marker being configured to mark, in the game scene, a virtual prop used by the second virtual character when the first virtual character attacks the second virtual character, and the second camp marker being configured to mark, in the game scene, a camp of the second virtual character attacked by the first virtual character.
However, in a related video game invention, Fan teaches these aspects in another video game aiming/marking system, (e.g. Fan, Fig. 4, e.g., 42a, 43a and related descriptions, Fig. 10, 1004, ¶122). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided Fan’s marking teachings in Garvin’s system for the purpose of enabling a player to effectively track multiple objects within a predefined range. This yields the predictable results of aiming at multiple enemies and recalibrating the aiming based on proximity.
Regarding Claim 9: Garvin in view of Fan shows displaying, when the first virtual character attacks the second virtual character and the second virtual character is defeated, a target virtual object that is configured to display a virtual character in a different camp than the first virtual character; displaying a target location marker in a minimap when the virtual character in the different camp, the target location marker being configured to indicate, in the minimap, a location corresponding to the virtual character in the different camp; and moving, when the virtual character in the different camp moves within a preset range of the target virtual object, the target location marker in accordance with the movement of the virtual character. (e.g., Fan, Fig. 4 and related descriptions).
Regarding Claim 10: Garvin in view of Fan shows displaying a perspective marker corresponding to the second virtual character in the game scene when the attack event is the first virtual character being attacked by the second virtual character, and a virtual obstacle exists between the first virtual character and the second virtual character, the perspective marker being configured to display a representation of the second virtual character in the game scene; and displaying the perspective marker corresponding to the second virtual character in the game scene when the attack event is the first virtual character attacking the second virtual character, and the virtual obstacle exists between the first virtual character and the second virtual character, (e.g., Fan Fig 4 and related descriptions.)
Regarding Claim 11: Garvin in view of Fan shows wherein the displaying the target marker comprises: displaying, when the attack event is generated between the first virtual character and a plurality of second virtual characters, target markers with different display attributes, (e.g., Fan Fig 4 and related descriptions.)
Regarding Claim 12: Garvin in view of Fan shows displaying a visible target marker of a third virtual character when the attack event is generated, the third virtual character being in a same camp as the first virtual character; and displaying a perspective marker corresponding to the second virtual character when the attack event is generated, the perspective marker being configured to display a representation of the second virtual character in the game scene when a virtual obstacle exists between the first virtual character and the second virtual character, (e.g., Fan Fig 4 and related descriptions.)
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892.
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 OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights