CTNF 18/934,195 CTNF 81694 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 on 12/6/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.___(2014). Claims 1-15 are directed to a data processing method in a virtual scene; claims 16-18 are directed to an information processing apparatus, while claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage; However, all the claims recite steps of presenting a virtual scene on computing device. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart and are directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea). Addressing the claims under Step 2A, the claims are held to be directed to concepts similar to those found to be abstract, either as outlined in the 2014 lEG/July 2015 Update to Subject matter eligibility, or, as compared to certain decisions rendered by the courts. The claims describe the steps of data visualization. The addition of the limitations that narrow the idea merely aide in the description of the abstract idea and therefore do not render the claims any less abstract. Claims 1, 16 & 19 recite a “display method,” which falls within the statutory category of “process.” The claim is directed to organizing and controlling the progression of a virtual character through different modules/instances of a level in a video game based on user interaction and predefined conditions (first condition, second condition, loop end condition). This amounts to an abstract idea of rules and logic for game progression, i.e., a set of rules for managing states and transitions in a virtual environment, which is analogous to methods of organizing human (or game) activity and mental processes. The additional recitations of “processing circuitry,” “video game,” and “displaying a virtual character” merely invoke generic computer and display functions to implement the abstract game-play logic and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that improves computer functioning or any other technology. There is no recited improvement to graphics rendering, networking, latency, memory usage, or other technical field; the improvement is at most in game design or level structure (Step 2A: Yes). Step 2A, Prong Two: Claims 1, 16 & 19 do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; MPEP § 2106.05(f). (2) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; MPEP § 2106.05(h); (3) are insignificant extra solution activity; MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements are limited to generic computer components. The additional elements present in the claims are: “processor”, “storage medium” and “processing circuitry”. Thus, the claim as a whole, including the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/computer components and is not a practical application; See MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Claims are directed to an abstract idea. Under Step 2B, the examiner acknowledges the additional limitations (i.e. “processor”, “storage medium” and “processing circuitry”). Additionally, Under Step 2B, no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. For example, the computer components generically claimed to enable the management of the game by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, or (ii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Particularly, In re TLI Communications LLC (Fed Cir, 2016) held that adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible. As such, the recitation of the computer limitations in Claims 1 to 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea of rendering graphics on a computing device. These limitations however are used for data gathering and presentation and as such merely represents insignificant pre and post solution activity. Even assuming arguendo that the claims are not insignificant pre and post solution activities or mental activities, each of the functions performed by the machinery are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving and processing data, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (see July 2015 Update: Section IV)). Additionally, these limitations are merely generic recitations of computers and networks performing basic functions and the claims amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The limitations taken as a whole amount to nothing more than implementing the concept of data visualization and information management with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of object visibility on a display device. Ultimately, the claimed machine/device function solely as an obvious mechanism to achieve the claimed result, failing to impart a meaningful limit on the claim scope [see SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2010)]. The claims at issue here do not rise to overriding the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily performed by the computer, nor do they set forth with any specificity the interactions of the machine itself. Conversely, the claims are only specific in how the computer is used to facilitate the abstract idea itself, using routine and conventional operations of the generic machinery, and are silent as to any detail or property that would transform the otherwise generic machinery into a specialized or special purpose machine. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of applicant's method add nothing that is not already present when they are considered individually. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply convey the idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1-20 state the following terms and phrases “first module,” “second module,” and “third module” of a “level”; however, the claim does not positively define what constitutes a “module” of a level (e.g., a section of a map, a logical state, a distinct scene), and it is unclear whether modules are spatial regions, logical states, or both. Without further structural or functional limitation. Furthermore, the claim recites “a first instance of the first module” and “a second instance of the first module” without explaining how instances are differentiated (e.g., different time repeats, different spatial locations, different parameter values). It is unclear whether the first and second instances can overlap in time or space, which can affect the interpretation of the claimed movements and thus the metes and bounds of the claim. Claims 1-20 also recites “end position of a first instance of the first module” and “start position of a first instance of a second module” without defining whether these positions are predetermined coordinates, dynamically calculated, or relative positions. Similarly, recitation of terms “first condition,” “second condition,” and “loop end condition”; render the claims indefinite. While conditions are common in game logic, the claim does not provide any constraints on what kinds of conditions qualify (e.g., completion of tasks, attribute thresholds, timeouts). Without any functional or structural relationship beyond “when a first/second condition is met” and “when a loop end condition is met,” these elements are considered purely result-oriented and leave claim scope ambiguous. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US Patent pub. 20230031248; referred to hereinafter as Zhang) 07-15-02-aia The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Claim 1, 16 & 19: Zhang disclose a display method (abstract), comprising, displaying a virtual character that is located in a first module of a level in a video game (0050 & figure 3-4), controlling, based on a first interaction operation, the virtual character (0052-0053) to move from an end position of a first instance of the first module to a start position of a first instance of a second module of the level in the video game when a first condition of the first module is met (figure 4 & 0076-0078, tracking the virtual character to determine when the character has reached the clearing of sub-level 1 to move the character to start of sub-level 2), controlling, by processing circuitry and based on a second interaction operation, the virtual character to move from an end position of the first instance of the second module to a start position of a second instance of the first module when a second condition of the second module is met (0078-0080, where in when the player triggers a second condition passing level markers, the virtual character moves to the sublevel 3), and controlling, by the processing circuitry and based on the second interaction operation, the virtual character to move from the end position of the first instance of the second module to a start position of a third module of the level in the video game when the second condition of the second module is met and a loop end condition is met (figures 9-10 & 0117-0130). Claims 2 & 17: Zhang disclose wherein the video game is a side-scrolling video game (figure 1). Claims 3, 18 & 20: Zhang disclose wherein the virtual character is controlled to move to a plurality of instances of the first module and a plurality of instances of the second module until the loop end condition is met (0051). Claim 4: Zhang disclose wherein a target virtual character is displayed in at least one of the first instance of the first module or the second instance of the second module; and that the loop end condition is met when an attribute value of the target virtual character is meets an attribute condition (0083-0087). Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5 & 6-15 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. Examiner’s Note 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pan (12,324,989) refers to a virtual object control method performed by a computer device. The method includes: displaying a virtual object in a virtual scene region of a first level; in response to a task execution instruction for the virtual object, controlling the virtual object to perform a task corresponding to the first level in the virtual scene region; when the virtual object completes the task, displaying level identifiers of at least two second levels adjacent to the first level; in response to an interaction instruction for a target level identifier in the level identifiers of the at least two second levels, controlling the virtual object to perform an interaction operation on the target level identifier; and when the interaction operation is completed, controlling the virtual object to move to a virtual scene region of a second level corresponding to the target level identifier. Babieno (20180207524) refers to simultaneous playing in video games designed for a single player. The invention is realized with a computer unit and uses at least one display device, at least one computer device that generates the game image display and at least one game controller controlled by the user. The method of controlling the figure according to the invention is characterized in that the player using one controller simultaneously controls at least two characters ( 1 ), ( 2 ) while each of the characters controlled by the same user is displayed simultaneously in a separate viewport ( 6 ), ( 7 ), which makes a separate story universe (A), (B) and the input signal from the controller is transformed by the software synchronization layer including predefined modifiers specific for a given story universe (A), (B) The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton , 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM. 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. /SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/934,195 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights