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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application as filed on October 15, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on November 19, 2024 and July 25, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 15 include the language “a attack threshold.” This should read -- an attack threshold --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re claims 10 and 11, the claims recite “in ascending order.” The term “ascending” is unclear. For example, the claims do not provide a context to determine what ascending means. For example, is an ascending order from a greatest distance to a lowest distance or the opposite. For purposes of examination, this term is interpreted as a list of ranked items.
In re claim 11, the language “displayed by using a virtual radar and in an ascending order” is indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by this terminology. A virtual radar usually displays objects based on distance and direction from a reference point. Therefore it is unclear what is meant by in an ascending order in this context. Moreover, it is unclear what the ascending order in claim 11 is the same as or different than the ascending orders mentioned in claim 10. For purposes of examination, this term is interpreted as displaying information in a radial pattern based on a distance from a virtual object.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable medium. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, prong 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, in strategy games an assistance request is sent and after receiving the assistance request, if others agree to assist in the battle, a virtual object needs to be selected in the game (e.g., par. 43).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method for controlling a virtual object, the method comprising:
displaying a virtual scene by a first terminal, a first account being logged in to the first terminal, the virtual scene including at least one first virtual object at a first position and associated with the first account;
displaying an interaction invitation interface; and
transmitting an interaction request to at least one second terminal in response to a trigger operation being performed on the interaction invitation interface, wherein
each of the at least one second terminal is associated with a different second account and
each of at least one second virtual object is controlled to interact with the at least one first virtual object in response to the interaction request and based on whether a distance between a second position of the respective second virtual object and the first position is less than a first distance threshold.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in claims 14 and 18. The underlined limitations in claim 1 recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of mental processes and/or method of organizing human activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, mental processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and organizing human activity includes at least fundamental economic principles or practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
The claim limitations include functions that constitute at least instructions governed by a set of rules amounting to certain methods or organized human activity, insomuch that claims provide no specificity as to the structure that equates to certain rules being performed by any specific components beyond generic computing devices. These sets of rules (implemented in practice as a set of rules for selecting and displaying interaction invitations or messages and having objects interaction under certain conditions) are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements as set forth in the claims. Moreover, it appears some or all of the limitations underlined above are mental processes, such that but for the recitations of generic (i.e., not specific) computer components, nothing in the claimed method, CRM, or system precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13, 15, 16, 19, and 20: Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from at least one of the independent claims identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claims further describe additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e. additional aspects to the mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, the dependent claims merely provide additional rules to be followed (e.g. if/then rules), without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Under Step 2A, prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, for example, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/ or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se: a first terminal and a second terminal, processing circuitry, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and storing instructions executed by a processor which perform the operations of the abstract concept. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The specification with regard to the first and second terminals indicate that “The electronic device provided in the embodiments of this disclosure may be implemented as various types of terminal devices such as a notebook computer, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a set-top box, or a mobile device (for example, a mobile phone, a portable music player, a personal digital assistant, a dedicated messaging device, or a portable game device).” (spec. 44), In addition, “processor 410 may be an integrated circuit chip having a signal processing capability, for example, a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), or another programmable logic device, discrete gate, transistor logical device, or discrete hardware component. The general purpose processor may be a microprocessor, any conventional processor, or the like.” (Spec. 55). Finally, “the memory 450, such as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, includes a volatile memory or a non-volatile memory, or may include both a volatile memory and a non-volatile memory. The non-volatile memory may be a read-only memory (ROM). The volatile memory may be a random access memory (RAM). The memory 450 described in this embodiment of this disclosure is to include any suitable type of memory.” (Spec. 58).
Therefore, the specification describes the terminals and their components in generic and functional terms, which illustrates that these are merely off-the-shelf computer components arranged in conventional ways. As a result, nothing in Applicant’s specification indicates the computer system performs anything other than well understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving, storing, processing, and transmitting. See, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (ed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the [S]pecification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”); see also Alice, 573 US. at 224—26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1340, 1355 (ed. Cir, 2014) (That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). At best, Applicant’s claimed subject matter simply uses generic processing circuitry to perform the abstract idea of converting input data from one form to another (e.g., an invitation request from one terminal to another and a game action in response). As noted above, the use of a generic computer system does not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. 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. 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2013/0344953 by Yoshikawa et al. (“Yoshikawa”) in view of US Publication No. 2017/0282065 by Miller et al. (“Miller”).
In re claims 1, 14, and 18, Yoshikawa discloses an apparatus including processing circuitry, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method/operations for controlling a virtual object [Figs. 1, 3,¶¶69-76], the method comprising: displaying a virtual scene by a first terminal, and associated with the first user, the virtual scene including at least one first virtual object at a first position and associated with the first user [¶¶8-12, 58, among others, describes displaying a battle scene including a virtual target user (character under control of the first user)]; displaying an interaction invitation interface [¶¶8-24, 103, 137-141, among others, target user is provided via their terminal information about other virtual users whom they may send an assistance request, e.g., in an ordered list]; and transmitting an interaction request to at least one second terminal [¶¶8-24, 102, 103, 133-136, among others, describe transmitting the request to the other user to provide assistance in a battle], wherein each of the at least one second terminal is associated with a different second user [¶¶8-24, among others, describe a target user and at least other users (not the target user) who are available to assist the target user] and each of at least one second virtual object is controlled to interact with the at least one first virtual object in response to the interaction request and based on whether a distance between a second position of the respective second virtual object and the first position is less than a first distance threshold [¶¶8-24, 94-114, 133-136, among others, describe the battle processing section processes a battle between a target virtual user and an enemy having appeared at the virtual position of the target virtual user. At least one other virtual user other than a target virtual user may provide the target user assistance in the battle. However, the available other users are restricted with regard to a virtual distance between the target user and the other user, such that only another user who can effectively assist the target virtual user in a battle against the enemy is selected. A terminal, which controls another virtual user selected as a candidate for assistance, triggers use of a battle point by the operation data, and the enemy battle processing section 46 damages the enemy (an interaction). When the hit point of the enemy decreases to zero due to the damage done by the virtual user, the enemy battle processing section 46 outputs the result that the target virtual user has won the battle with the enemy].
Yoshikawa teaches first and second users at terminals as clients for playing a game managed by server. Yoshikawa doesn’t expressly teach the first (target) and second users (other) have accounts to which the users are logged in. However, Miller teaches a game networking system 150 that can generate, store, receive, and transmit game-related data, such as, for example, game account data, game input, game state data, and game displays. Player 101 may use client system 130 to access, send data to, and receive data from social networking system 140 and game networking system 150. Player 101 may access an online game and control the game's progress via client system 130 (e.g., by inputting commands to the game at the client device). Client system 130 can display the game interface, receive inputs from player 101, transmit user inputs or other events to the game engine, and receive instructions from the game engine. In particular, an online game can be hosted by game networking system 150, which can be accessed using any suitable connection with a suitable client system 130. A player may have a game account on game networking system 150, wherein the game account can contain a variety of information associated with the player (e.g., the player's personal information, financial information, purchase history, player character state, game state). In some embodiments, a player may play multiple games on game networking system 150, which may maintain a single game account for the player with respect to all the games, or multiple individual game accounts for each game with respect to the player. In some embodiments, game networking system 150 can assign a unique identifier to each player 101 of an online game hosted on game networking system 150. Game networking system 150 can determine that a player 101 is accessing the online game by reading the user's cookies, which may be appended to Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests transmitted by client system 130, and/or by the player 101 logging onto the online game. See, e.g., ¶¶30.
In addition, to the extent Yoshikawa lacks transmitting the request in response to a “trigger operation” being performed on the interaction invitation interface, Miller teaches various interaction interfaces for messaging other players playing an online game including rendering assistance using various interface options, such as a selectable button (trigger) to perform the interaction based on the interaction message, e.g., Figs. 5, 6, ¶¶61-70.
Yoshikawa and Miller are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of online video gaming. 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 invention of Yoshikawa and include using player accounts to log into the gaming system and a button to trigger the transmitting interaction messages, as taught by Miller, in order efficiently organize player data, track player status, and charge players for use of the gaming system and increase player enjoyment, for example, by allowing friends to communicate and help each other while playing, see, e.g., ¶¶13,14.
In re claims 2, 15, and 19, Yoshikawa discloses, displaying an interaction invitation interface access element when an interaction condition is satisfied [¶¶8-24, 133, 134, 136, 141, 156-159, among others, describe an operation data receiving section receives, from the target virtual user, assistance request data for requesting another virtual user to assist in a battle against the enemy having appeared at the virtual position of the target virtual user. Upon reception of the assistance request data, the relationship building section transmits, to the target virtual user, relevant information regarding another virtual user who is a candidate for assistance. Interaction conditions include being in battle, having a certain level of skill, having a preexisting relationship, and/or virtual distance between target user and user available for assistance].
In re claims 4 and 17, Yoshikawa in view of Miller disclose user accounts that are logged in and a trigger operation being performed on the interaction request control element as described above for claim 1. Yoshikawa further discloses displaying at least one candidate user element and an interaction request control element; configuring at least one candidate user corresponding to the at least one candidate user element; and transmitting the interaction request to the at least one second terminal to [Figs. 17, 19, 22 ¶¶103, 113, 114, 133-136, among others, describe the virtual user screening section 47a arranges, in a descending order of the level, the other screened-in virtual users that may provide assistance based on various criteria, such as location/distance, level/ability, and frequency of interaction (social)].
In re claim 5, Yoshikawa in view of Miller disclose user accounts that are logged in and a trigger operation being performed on the interaction request control element as described above for claim 1. Yoshikawa further discloses displaying at least one candidate account element and an interaction request control element; displaying, in response to at least one candidate account corresponding to the at least one candidate account element satisfying an automatic selection condition, the at least one candidate account in a selected state; configuring, the candidate account in the selected state as a second account; and transmitting the interaction request to the at least one second terminal to which the at least one second account is logged in [Figs. 17, 19, 22 ¶¶21, 103, 133-136, 140, 141, among others, describe the virtual user screening section 47a arranges, in a descending order of the level, the other screened-in virtual users that may provide assistance based on various criteria, such as location/distance, level/ability, and frequency of interaction (social)].
In re claim 7, Yoshikawa discloses a number of candidate virtual objects associated with the candidate account is greater than a difference between a number of attacking objects attacking the at least one first virtual object and a number of the at least one first virtual object; or an object skill of the candidate virtual object associated with the candidate account is greater than an object skill of the at least one first virtual object [Figs. 17, 19, 22 ¶¶14, 21, 103, 133-136, 140, 141, among others, describe a high-level virtual user is expected to do significant damage to the enemy during the battle. The relationship building section 47 selects a virtual user with a higher level, in other words, selects, from among at least one candidate virtual user restricted with regard to the virtual distance, a user available for assistance who can effectively assist the target virtual user in a battle against the enemy. In turn, to the terminal 3 that is used to control the target virtual user, the relationship building section 47 presents relevant information regarding the selected virtual use].
In re claim 8, Yoshikawa discloses obtaining a candidate account satisfying at least one of : a distance between a terminal which a candidate account is logged in and the first terminal is less than a second distance threshold; a candidate account having a social relationship with the first account; a candidate account having a historical interaction event with the first account in the virtual scene; or a distance between a candidate virtual object associated with the at least one candidate account and the at least one first virtual object is less than a third distance threshold [¶¶12, 138-141, among others, describe the relationship building section calculates the number of interactions that the other user has had with the target virtual user, which indicates the strength of the relationship therebetween. In turn, the relationship building section selects a virtual user with a larger number of interactions from among at least one other virtual user].
In re claim 10, Yoshikawa in view of Miller disclose user accounts that are logged in and a trigger operation being performed on the interaction request control element as described above for claim 1. Yoshikawa further discloses displaying a plurality of candidate user in ascending order of physical distances between a candidate terminal to which the candidate account is logged in and the first terminal; displaying the plurality of candidate accounts in ascending order of social distances between the plurality of candidate accounts and the first account; or displaying the plurality of candidate accounts in ascending order of network signal strengths of terminals which the plurality of candidate accounts are logged in [¶¶137-141, among others, describes screening and ordering virtual users (candidates) based on the strength of the relationship, e.g., cumulative number of times in which the other virtual user has accepted a request for assistance from the target virtual user as well as on the cumulative number of messages exchanged therebetween (social distance)].
In re claim 12, Yoshikawa discloses, wherein when a plurality of second accounts are provided, the method further comprises: controlling the at least one second virtual object associated with each second account to appear from a same second position; or controlling the at least one second virtual object associated with each second user to appear from different second positions [Figs. 5, 11, and 12, ¶¶8-12, 95, 134-136, among others, describe a virtual position changing section 43 changes positions of the virtual character (object of second user) to a common stage of the user requesting assistance (object of first user) to change the virtual position at which the virtual user exists to a virtual position of a destination (e.g., of the virtual user requesting assistance) when accumulated points consumed in accordance with a received content of the operation data is greater than or equal to points required for the virtual user to reach the virtual position of the destination (the position being traveled from is different than the position traveled to)].
In re claim 13, Yoshikawa discloses, wherein the second position is any position away from the at least one first virtual object by a distance less than the first distance threshold; when the first virtual object is in an attacked state, the second position is a position outside an attacking range of an attacking object; when the first virtual object is in an attacking state, the second position is a position within a damage range of an attacked object; or when a plurality of virtual items to be picked up are provided in the virtual scene, the second position is any position away from a virtual item of the plurality of virtual items by a distance less than a fourth distance threshold [Figs. 5, 11, and 12, ¶¶8-12, 95, 134-136, among others, describe a virtual position changing section 43 changes positions of the virtual character (object of second user) to a common stage of the user requesting assistance (object of first user) to change the virtual position at which the virtual user exists to a virtual position of a destination (e.g., of the virtual user requesting assistance) when accumulated points consumed in accordance with a received content of the operation data is greater than or equal to points required for the virtual user to reach the virtual position of the destination (threshold)].
Claims 3, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Miller, and further in view of US Publication No. 2014/0235354 by Takeuchi et al. (“Takeuchi”).
In re claims 3, 16, and 20, Yoshikawa discloses conditions for requesting assistance from other players of a game. Yoshikawa lacks a teaching that the condition comprises a total health point of the at least one first virtual object is less than a health threshold. However, Takeuchi describes a game in which a terminal device of a player includes a communication unit for transmitting a participation request to let the a participate in the game. In addition, a help request may be made on a condition when the health point parameter value of the cards which form the deck of a user participating in the battle has fallen below a threshold value (e.g., two-third of the upper-limit value) while the battle is proceeding. See, e.g., ¶¶184, 186, and 190.
Yoshikawa, Miller, and Takeuchi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of online video gaming. 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 invention of Yoshikawa in view of Miller to include a condition for a request for help to have a condition of health being bellow a threshold, as taught by Takeuchi, in order to increase player enjoyment of the game, for example, by increasing chance of success and/or allowing teammates or friends to come to the aid of a fellow player when appropriate to avoid death or end of the game.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Miller, and further in view of US Patent No. 7,311,608 to Danieli et al. (“Danieli”).
In re claim 6, Yoshikawa lacks, but Danieli teaches displaying a countdown for the at least one candidate account; hiding, when the countdown reaches a set duration threshold and the at least one candidate account is in an unselected state, the at least one candidate account; and displaying at least one new candidate account [col. 2, l.25 to col. 3, l. 62, describe, among others, the user is enabled to select a friend from the friends list of the user. Then, the user is enabled to send an invitation to the friend selected from the friends list, so that the friend is invited to join in playing the online game being played by the user. An invitation sent to a friend on the friends list of the user to join in playing an online game is canceled after a predefined period of time has elapsed without the friend accepting the invitation].
Yoshikawa, Miller, and Danieli are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of online video gaming. 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 invention of Yoshikawa in view of Miller to include a timer for expiration of a player invitation request and removing the request, as taught by Danieli, in order to increase player enjoyment of the game, for example, by increasing efficiency of removing requests that aren’t timely or likely to be answered.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Yoshikawa in view of Miller, and further in view of US Publication No. 2004/0157662 by Tsuchiya et al. (“Tsuchiya”).
In re claim 11, Yoshikawa disclose a radar screening area for other characters eligible to provide assistance [Fig. 20]. Yoshikawa doesn’t explicitly teach the plurality of candidate accounts are displayed by using a virtual radar and in an ascending order. Tsuchiya a virtual radar display to showing other accounts (players) in relation to a distance (ascending) [Fig. 7, ¶¶61, 85-88].
Yoshikawa, Miller, and Tsuchiya are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of online video gaming. 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 invention of Yoshikawa in view of Miller to include a radar map display to show player positions, as taught by Tsuchiya, in order increase player enjoyment of the game, for example, by increasing efficiency of identification of players closest to player and thereby more likely to be able to aid the player.
Examiner Note:
In re claim 9, the prior art of record does not anticipate or obviate the following recitations “obtaining environment data of the virtual scene and object data of at least one virtual object; and invoking a first neural network model to perform: extracting an environment feature from the environment data, and extracting an object feature from the object data; merging the environment feature and the object feature, to obtain a first merged feature; and mapping the first merged feature into a first probability of each participating account responding to the interaction request and using a participating account with highest probability as the candidate account” in combination with the rest of the elements in claims 1 and 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights