Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to Applicant’s communication filed on 07/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2018/0200616 A1) in view of Inaba et al (US 2020/0164272 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a virtual object control method performed by a terminal (Abstract), the method comprising displaying a virtual environment having an attack control (Fig. 1), wherein the attack control is configured for controlling a first virtual object in the virtual environment to perform at least two different behaviors (Fig. 1: 200), detecting an operation attribute of a touch operation on the attack control (Fig. 3: Q1), determining, in response to the touch operation, a target behavior from the at least two different behaviors according to the operation attribute of the touch operation (Fig. 3: 10, 20, 30), determining a second virtual object towards which the target behavior is directed and controlling the first virtual object to perform the target behavior onto the second virtual object (¶ [0025]: attack in the direction of enemy vector a). Inaba suggests—where Li does not specifically disclose—performing the at least two different behaviors through the same attack control (¶ [0145]: first and second hammer attack motions according to hold duration). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Li and Inaba in order to make the game easier to play by minimizing the number of finger motions required.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Li discloses wherein the operation attribute of the touch operation comprises at least one of a touch duration, a touch pressure, a quantity of touch times, and a touch direction (Fig. 2: release direction).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses wherein the at least two different behaviors comprise at least a skill cast operation, a virtual item use operation, or a state switching operation (¶ [0016]: dodging, jumping, moving, attacking).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Li discloses wherein the touch operation is a click/tap operation and the operation attribute is a quantity of touch times (Fig. 3: Q1).
Claims 14 and 20 recite an apparatus and storage medium, respectively, subsuming the features of claim 1 above. They are accordingly rejected for the same reasons given supra. Further regarding claims 14 and 20, Li discloses a memory, storage medium and at least one processor (¶ [0030]: mobile phone, game console or tablet inherently contain these).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Inaba and Shono et al (US 2014/0357360 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shono suggests—where Li does not disclose—wherein after the controlling the first virtual object to perform the target behavior, the method further comprises determining a resource decrease quantity of the first virtual object, and updating the quantity of resources associated with the first virtual object according to the resource decrease quantity (¶ [0239]: stamina meter may decrease each time the attack from the player succeeds). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Li, Inaba and Shono in order to make the game more interesting by introducing a cost for certain player actions.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Inaba and Rong (US 2018/0369693 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Rong suggests—where Li does not disclose—wherein the second virtual object is determined based on the target behavior (¶ [0042]: virtual character 2 is selected by the player through the sub-control “closest” having been selected). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Li, Inaba and Rong in order to allow for more complex and interesting game.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11, 17 and 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, 14 and 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. 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 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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
