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, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 18 and 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, 9 and 10 recite(s):
A method for determining a damage range of a skill, comprising:
in response to release of a target skill, determining a release position of the target skill, wherein the release position is located in a scene unit within a virtual scene, the scene unit is hexagonal, and the virtual scene is comprises a plurality of scene units arranged consecutively;
acquiring, by the processor, based on the release position, a first relative position information of a damage range of the target skill, wherein the first relative position information comprises position information of the damage range of the target skill relative to the release position; and
determining, by the processor, the damage range of the target skill based on the first relative position information of the damage range of the target skill,
wherein acquiring, by the processor, the first relative position of the damage range of the target skill comprises:
determining, by the processor, a second relative position of the release position relative to an object position of a virtual object that releases the target skill; and
acquiring, by the processor, the first relative position of the damage range of the target skill corresponding to the second relative position, wherein the first relative position corresponding to the second relative position varies in accordance with the second relative position,
wherein the first relative position of the damage range of the target skill corresponding to the second relative position is pre-set by:
establishing, by the processor, a second hexagonal coordinate system with the scene unit corresponding to the release position as origin;
setting, by the processor, one or more target scene units belonging to the damage range of the target skill; and
determining, by the processor, coordinate information of the one or more target scene units in the second hexagonal coordinate system as the first relative position of the damage range of the target skill corresponding to the second relative position,
wherein setting, by the processor, the one or more target scene units belonging to the damage range of the target skill comprises: in response to a line connecting the object position and the release position satisfying a specified condition,
setting, by the processor, the one or more target scene units to make a center line of an area corresponding to the one or more target scene units coincide with the line connecting the object position and the release position;
in response to the line connecting the object position and the release position failing to satisfy the specified condition, setting, by the processor, the one or more target scene units to minimize an angle between the center line of the area corresponding to the one or more target scene units and the line connecting the object position and the release position;
wherein the specified condition comprises: the line connecting the object position and the release position being perpendicular to any side of a hexagonal scene unit in the virtual scene, or the line connecting the object position and the release position passing through any corner of a hexagonal scene unit in the virtual scene.
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 “electronic device”, “processor”, “memory”, “a non-transitory compute readable storage medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people or in the mind of the user. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a game player deciding to perform a release of a target skill that is based on a game mechanic, determining position of the released skill, and calculating the damage of said skill based on the position of the release and the range target skill.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people or perform in the mind of a user, 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) – “electronic device”, “processor”, “memory”, “a non-transitory compute readable storage medium”
electronic device”, “processor”, “memory”, “a non-transitory compute 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 82).
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) 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 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. For example, claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15-16, 18 recites additional game rules and claims 20 recites additional generic computing 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. 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 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the limitation of indenpedent claim belongs to a specific technical problem in computer graphics, provide a real time rendering of game engine and collision detection. Specifically, the applicant argued that the claimed limitation provides an improvement to the functioning of computing device by “significantly enhance the computational efficiency of the underlying processor, and optimize memory invocation and bus bandwidth occupancy” (see page 13/14 of the applicant’s argument last complete paragraph). The MPEP requires that the specification (and disclosure) provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). However, the current specification is silent on any mention how the claimed subject matter would provide improvement on computational efficiency of the underlying processor, and optimize memory invocation and bus bandwidth occupancy. Instead, the specification only provide an improvement on the calculation of the accuracy of damage calculation (see paragraph 52, 70 and 90). Since, the specification lacks any disclosure that support applicant’s assertion of an improvement of the functioning of the computing device, the examiner takes the position that the rejection is 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