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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species I without traverse and the corresponding claims 1-7 and 14-24 in the communications filed on 07/22/2026 has been acknowledged. Cancellation of claims 8-13 by Applicant in same communication has also been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2022117369535, filed on 12/30/2022.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 14-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over League of Legends: Wild Rift, as evidenced by Caitlyn Gameplay Guide and Wild Rift Gameplay Video.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
1158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Wild Rift gameplay featuring the champion Caitlyn. An ammunition gauge can be seen under the champion’s health bar (indicated by the arrow). At the time of the screenshot, the champion has used their basic attack ability 3 times, as indicated by the 3 filled-in segments of the ammunition gauge.
PNG
media_image2.png
655
1158
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Wild Rift gameplay featuring the champion Caitlyn after the champion has used their basic attack ability 6 times, satisfying the champion’s passive ability conditions for empowering their basic attack ability. The basic attack (“arrow”) button in the bottom left corner is glowing to indicate the basic attack ability is in an empowered state.
PNG
media_image3.png
702
1250
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Screenshot from 2:14 in Wild Rift Gameplay Video, where “level up” buttons can be seen next to three of the champion’s abilities. Notice how the level progress indicator around the first and second abilities display a single blue segment.
PNG
media_image4.png
704
1252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Screenshot from 2:16 in Wild Rift Gameplay Video, after the player has chosen to level up the first ability. Notice how the level progress indicator around the first ability now displays two blue segments.
League of Legends: Wild Rift, henceforth Wild Rift, is a mobile game that was released on October 27, 2020. During gameplay, players control one of a wide variety of individual characters (“champions”) which each possess an individual “kit” consisting of unique abilities and game mechanics. Examiner asserts that the features recited in the claims are disclosed by League of Legends: Wild Rift across the “kits” of the game’s “champions,” specifically the champion “Caitlyn,” who was released on 11/9/2021.
Regarding claim 1 and substantially similar limitations in claims 15 and 18, League of Legends: Wild Rift discloses “a computer-assisted method, comprising: causing to be output a function interaction button (the basic attack (“arrow”) button in the lower left corner of the screen in Figs. 1-2) during running of a virtual game task in which a first virtual object participates (the champion Caitlyn, as seen in Figs. 1-2); controlling, based on a triggering of the function interaction button, the first virtual object to use a target function (Caitlyn’s basic attack ability), the target function corresponding to at least two level states, and the at least two level states comprising a first-level state and a second-level state (the two “level states” of Caitlyn’s basic attack ability being the unempowered and empowered versions of their basic attack, see the ability “Headshot:” “Every 6 attacks fires a headshot, dealing bonus physical damage. There is an indicator underneath Caitlyn's mana bar that shows how many attacks you have done. Once the last bar turns red, then her next attack will be a Headshot”); determining level information of the target function and progress information of the target function, the level information indicating that the target function is currently in the first-level state, and the progress information indicating a first use progress corresponding to the target function in the first-level state (the progress information can be seen in the form of an ammunition gauge under Caitlyn’s health bar (see Fig. 1), where an empowered attack occurs when the ammunition gauge is completely filled (see Fig. 2)); causing to be output […] the progress information of the target function (the ammunition gauge in Figs. 1-2); determining, based on the first use progress satisfying an upgrade condition corresponding to the first-level state (using Caitlyn’s basic attack ability 6 times), updated level information of the target function and updated progress information of the target function, the updated level information indicating that the target function is in the second-level state (see Fig. 2: the basic attack (“arrow”) button in the bottom left corner of the screen glows and “crackles” with animated lightning when the basic attack ability is in the empowered state) […] and causing to be output the updated level information of the target function (see Fig. 2).”
However, Wild Rift is silent on “determining […] the updated progress information indicating a second use progress corresponding to the target function in the second-level state” and “causing to be output […] the updated progress information of the target function [in the second-level state].”
That being said, Wild Rift already discloses computer code and visual assets used to determine and display “progress information indicating a first use progress corresponding to the target function in the first-level state.” Examiner contends that the additional limitation of “progress information indicating a second use progress corresponding to the target function in the second-level state” essentially constitutes a duplication of parts, because the code used to display a progress bar, gauge, etc. which updates with each use of a character’s ability and display a visual indication that the ability is in a second-level state could be repurposed to perform the identical function of indicating progress toward a third-level state (or fourth-level, fifth-level, etc.), with the only substantial difference being modifications to the visual assets to allow the user to distinguish between the different level states (e.g., the numeral “3” vs the numeral “2,” or using different colors or images for the ability icon). Thus, implementing additional level states for an ability beyond a first- and second-level state would essentially require only a mere duplication of the code which allows the ability to progress from a first-level state to a second-level state.
Because displaying the user’s progress toward a third-level state would function identically to displaying the user’s progress toward a second-level state (the only significant difference being the use of different visual assets to allow the user to distinguish between the three level states), duplicating the code which allows the ability to progress from a first-level state to a second-level state to allow the ability to progress from the second-level state to an additional third-level state could not be said to result in a “new and unexpected result.” Thus, in accordance with the precedent set forth in In re Harza, which established that “the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced,” the recited limitations of “determining […] the updated progress information indicating a second use progress corresponding to the target function in the second-level state” and “causing to be output […] the updated progress information of the target function [in the second-level state” are considered to have no patentable significance with respect to the claims. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2 and substantially similar limitations in claims 16 and 19, Wild Rift discloses “the method according to claim 1, wherein the causing to be output progress information of the target function comprises: causing to be output a first-level quantity of first-level segments in a first area […], the first-level quantity of first-level segments displaying a quantity of uses corresponding to the target function in the first-level state (each segment of the ammunition gauge seen in Figs. 1-2 indicates a use of Caitlyn’s basic attack ability: “There is an indicator underneath Caitlyn's mana bar that shows how many attacks you have done. Once the last bar turns red, then her next attack will be a Headshot”).”
However, Wild Rift is silent on “causing to be output a first-level quantity of first-level segments in a first area of the function interaction button.”
Wild Rift features a game mechanic where players can upgrade their champion’s abilities in-game by spending points when their champion levels up over the course of a game. Each champion possesses three special abilities, which can be upgraded four times each, and one ultimate ability, which can be upgraded three times. The buttons corresponding to these abilities can be seen in the bottom left corner of the screen in Figs. 1-2, surround the basic attack button. Notably, the individual upgrade level of each of these special abilities is indicated by a segmented area around the button, wherein one segment is “filled in” (changes from black to blue) each time the corresponding ability is upgraded (for example, Caitlyn’s first ability (“Piltover Peacemaker”) has been upgraded four times in Figs. 1-2, whereas their other abilities have only been upgraded once; see also Figs. 3-4). Thus, Wild Rift already discloses a feature of indicating the upgrade progress of an ability in an area around the button corresponding to that ability, so it would not take extraordinary creativity for one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that the ammunition gauge used to indicate upgrade progress toward Caitlyn’s basic attack ability could be replicated in the form of a circular segmented gauge around the button corresponding to the basic attack ability. This feature would be advantageous due to being easier for a player to see than the current ammunition gauge, owing to the large size of the basic attack button as well as its remote placement from the center of the screen where the in-game action takes place. Examiner respectfully submits that the inventive step between the implementation of Caitlyn’s “kit” seen in Figs. 1-2 and the modification of adding additional segments indicating use progress toward Caitlyn’s empowered basic attack around the basic attack button would not be so large as to require extraordinary creativity to conceive in light of the fact that the button corresponding to Caitlyn’s basic attack ability already displays a visual indicator when Caitlyn’s basic attack is empowered, which, in addition to the upgrade progress segments around the buttons corresponding to Caitlyn’s special abilities as seen in Figs. 1-2, suggests that the game designers had already recognized the usefulness of displaying visual information regarding the state of an ability in the same area as the button corresponding to that ability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the game of Wild Rift to include ability upgrade progress indicator segments around the basic attack ability button, as taught by Wild Rift, and they would have been motivated to do so to make it easier for the player to see the upgrade progress of the ability, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3 and substantially similar limitations in claims 17 and 20, Wild Rift discloses “the method according to claim 2, wherein the causing to be output a first-level quantity of segments in a first area of the function interaction button comprises: causing to be output a first segment subset and a second segment subset in the first area, the first segment subset comprising a first quantity of first-level segments in an empty state (the empty “first segment subsets” can be seen in Fig. 1), wherein the second segment subset comprises a second quantity of first-level segments in a filled state (the white/red filled segments seen in Figs. 1-2), wherein a sum of the first quantity and the second quantity is the first-level quantity, and wherein the first segment subset and the second segment subset displaying the quantity of uses corresponding to the target function in the first-level state (each segment of the ammunition gauge seen in Figs. 1-2 indicates a use of Caitlyn’s basic attack ability: “There is an indicator underneath Caitlyn's mana bar that shows how many attacks you have done. Once the last bar turns red, then her next attack will be a Headshot”).
Regarding claim 4 and substantially similar limitations in claim 21, Wild Rift discloses “the method according to claim 3, wherein the causing to be output a first segment subset and a second segment subset in the first area comprises: causing to be output, in the first area, a first initial segment subset comprising a first initial quantity of first-level segments and a second initial segment subset comprising a second initial quantity of first-level segments, a sum of the first initial quantity and the second initial quantity being the first-level quantity (each segment of the ammunition gauge seen in Figs. 1-2 indicates a use of Caitlyn’s basic attack ability: “There is an indicator underneath Caitlyn's mana bar that shows how many attacks you have done. Once the last bar turns red, then her next attack will be a Headshot”), determining, in response to obtaining a use operation of the first virtual object on the target function in the first-level state, a present quantity of segments from the first initial segment subset for filling to obtain a preset quantity of first-level segments in the first state (each segment of the ammunition gauge seen in Figs. 1-2 corresponds to a single use of Caitlyn’s basic attack ability, which corresponds to a present quantity of 1 segment per use), adding the obtained preset quantity of first-level segments in the filled state to the second initial segment subset to obtain the second segment subset comprising the second quantity of first-level segments (see Figs. 1-2); and using a first initial segment subset for which the preset quantity of first-level segments are removed as the first segment subset comprising the first quantity of first-level segments (see Figs. 1-2), wherein a difference between the first quantity and the first initial quantity is the preset quantity (Caitlyn’s ammunition gauge starts out with zero filled segments, then increases by 1 with each use of their basic attack ability), and wherein a difference between the second quantity and the second initial quantity is the preset quantity (Caitlyn’s ammunition gauge starts out with zero filled segments, then increases by 1 with each use of their basic attack ability).”
Regarding claim 5 and substantially similar limitations in claim 22, Wild Rift discloses “the method according to claim 3, wherein before the causing to be output the updated level information of the target function and the updated progress information of the target function, the method further comprises: determining, based on a determination that the first quantity is 0 or the second quantity is the first-level quantity, that the first use progress satisfies the upgrade condition corresponding to the first-level state (see Fig. 2; Caitlyn’s basic attack ability becomes empowered once their ammunition gauge fills up completely: “There is an indicator underneath Caitlyn's mana bar that shows how many attacks you have done. Once the last bar turns red, then her next attack will be a Headshot”).”
Regarding claim 6 and substantially similar limitations in claim 23, Wild Rift discloses “the method according to claim 5, wherein after the determining that the first use progress satisfies the upgrade condition corresponding to the first-level state, the method further comprises: causing to be output a dynamic special effect for indicating that the first-level state is upgraded to the second-level state (see Fig. 2: the basic attack (“arrow”) button in the bottom left corner of the screen glows and “crackles” with animated lightning when the basic attack ability is in the empowered state).”
However, Wild Rift is silent on “causing to be output, after playback of the dynamic special effect is complete, the updated level information in a second area, and causing to be output the updated progress information in the first area.”
That being said, Wild Rift already discloses computer code and visual assets used to determine and display “causing to be output […] the updated level information in an [] area and causing to be output the updated progress information in [an] area.” Examiner contends that the additional limitation of “causing to be output […] the updated level information in an second area and causing to be output the updated progress information in the first area” essentially constitutes a duplication of parts, because the code used to display a progress bar, gauge, etc. which updates with each use of a character’s ability and display a visual indication that the ability is in a second-level state could be repurposed to perform the identical function of indicating progress toward a third-level state (or fourth-level, fifth-level, etc.), with the only substantial difference being modifications to the visual assets to allow the user to distinguish between the different level states (e.g., the numeral “3” vs the numeral “2,” or using different colors or images for the ability icon). Thus, implementing additional level states for an ability beyond a first- and second-level state would essentially require only a mere duplication of the code which allows the ability to progress from a first-level state to a second-level state.
Because displaying the user’s progress toward a third-level state would function identically to displaying the user’s progress toward a second-level state (the only significant difference being the use of different visual assets to allow the user to distinguish between the three level states), duplicating the code which allows the ability to progress from a first-level state to a second-level state to allow the ability to progress from the second-level state to an additional third-level state could not be said to result in a “new and unexpected result.” Thus, in accordance with the precedent set forth in In re Harza, which established that “the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced,” the recited limitation of “causing to be output […] the updated level information in an second area and causing to be output the updated progress information in the first area” is considered to have no patentable significance with respect to the claims. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7 and substantially similar limitations in claim 24, Wild Rift discloses “the method according to claim 2.”
However, Wild Rift is silent on “the causing to be output the updated level information of the target function and the updated progress information of the target function comprises: causing to be output the updated level information in a second area, and causing to be output a second-level quantity of second-level segments in the first area, the second-level segments displaying a quantity of uses corresponding to the target function in the second-level state, and the second-level quantity being greater than or equal to the first-level quantity.”
That being said, Wild Rift already discloses computer code and visual assets used to determine and display “causing to be output a [first]-level quantity of [first]-level segments […] displaying a quantity of uses corresponding to the target function in the [first]-level state.” Examiner contends that the additional limitation of “causing to be output a second-level quantity of second-level segments […] displaying a quantity of uses corresponding to the target function in the second-level state” essentially constitutes a duplication of parts, because the code used to display a progress bar, gauge, etc. which updates with each use of a character’s ability and display a visual indication that the ability is in a second-level state could be repurposed to perform the identical function of indicating progress toward a third-level state (or fourth-level, fifth-level, etc.), with the only substantial difference being modifications to the visual assets to allow the user to distinguish between the different level states (e.g., the numeral “3” vs the numeral “2,” or using different colors or images for the ability icon). Thus, implementing additional level states for an ability beyond a first- and second-level state would essentially require only a mere duplication of the code which allows the ability to progress from a first-level state to a second-level state.
Because displaying the user’s progress toward a third-level state would function identically to displaying the user’s progress toward a second-level state (the only significant difference being the use of different visual assets to allow the user to distinguish between the three level states), duplicating the code which allows the ability to progress from a first-level state to a second-level state to allow the ability to progress from the second-level state to an additional third-level state could not be said to result in a “new and unexpected result.” Thus, in accordance with the precedent set forth in In re Harza, which established that “the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced,” the recited limitation of “causing to be output a second-level quantity of second-level segments […] displaying a quantity of uses corresponding to the target function in the second-level state” is considered to have no patentable significance with respect to the claims. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 14, Wild Rift discloses “the method according to claim 6.”
However, Wild Rift is silent on “after the causing to be output updated level information and updated progress information corresponding to the target function, the method further comprises: causing to be output, based on a determination that the second use progress satisfies an upgrade condition corresponding to the second-level state and a third-level state is a higher-level state among the at least two level states, additional updated level information updated in the second area, and hiding progress information in the first area, the additional updated level information indicating that the target function is currently in the third-level state.”
That being said, Wild Rift already discloses computer code and visual assets used to determine and display “causing to be output, based on a determination that the [first] use progress satisfies an upgrade condition corresponding to the [first]-level state and a [second]-level state is a higher-level state among the at least two level states, additional updated level information updated […] the additional updated level information indicating that the target function is currently in the [second]-level state.” Examiner contends that the limitation recited in the claim essentially constitutes a duplication of parts, because the code used to display a progress bar, gauge, etc. which updates with each use of a character’s ability and display a visual indication that the ability is in a second-level state could be repurposed to perform the identical function of indicating progress toward a third-level state (or fourth-level, fifth-level, etc.), with the only substantial difference being modifications to the visual assets to allow the user to distinguish between the different level states (e.g., the numeral “3” vs the numeral “2,” or using different colors or images for the ability icon). Thus, implementing additional level states for an ability beyond a first- and second-level state would essentially require only a mere duplication of the code which allows the ability to progress from a first-level state to a second-level state.
Because displaying the user’s progress toward a third-level state would function identically to displaying the user’s progress toward a second-level state (the only significant difference being the use of different visual assets to allow the user to distinguish between the three level states), duplicating the code which allows the ability to progress from a first-level state to a second-level state to allow the ability to progress from the second-level state to an additional third-level state could not be said to result in a “new and unexpected result.” Thus, in accordance with the precedent set forth in In re Harza, which established that “the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced,” the recited limitation of “causing to be output, based on a determination that the second use progress satisfies an upgrade condition corresponding to the second-level state and a third-level state is a higher-level state among the at least two level states, additional updated level information updated in the second area, and hiding progress information in the first area, the additional updated level information indicating that the target function is currently in the third-level state” is considered to have no patentable significance with respect to the claims. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights