DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 9/28/2026 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claims 1, 3-6, 8-16, and 18-20 have been amended; claims 2, 7, and 17 have been canceled; and new claims 21 and 22 have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 8-16, and 18-22 are pending. Claim 12 is duplicated. The second occurrence of claim 12 should be canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 9, “first user input” should be “a first user input”. Claims 12 and 18 have a similar issue. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 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.
In claim 1, the required method step sequence is unclear. That is, how does the master character defeat the target character prior to receipt of the first user input? The claim recites that “based on the first user input, initiating operation between the master virtual character and a target virtual character”. The term “first” input implies that there is no earlier user input. An earlier user input would be required before the first user input for the master to defeat the target. The Examiner reviewed the flowchart in Fig. 11 of the current application, which shows “control a master character to attack 1106” before “transmit an interaction operation instruction”, but Fig. 11 does not disclose that the interaction operation instruction is a “first” user input. Claims 12 and 18 share a similar issue. Clarification or correction is required.
Due to the 112 rejection, the Examiner has applied prior art as best understood. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner assumes that the first input user input is the target character attacking the target character and then the slave object’s health is increased following the attack on the target character.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 12-20 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 1-11 are directed to a process.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Determining an attribute value for a game (e.g., claims 1, 12, and 18)
Establishing a first slave virtual object to be in an unhealthy state (e.g., claims 1, 12, and 18)
Transitioning the first slave virtual object from the unhealthy state to a healthy state (e.g., see claims 1, 12, and 18)
Summoning the first slave virtual object (e.g., claim 2)
Inheriting a skill of a target virtual character by the first slave virtual object, aka siphoning (e.g., claims 3-5, 11, 13-15, 19, 21, and 22)
Switching forms of the first virtual object from a first form to a second form (e.g., claims 6-10, 16, 17, and 20)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims are primarily directed to rules for playing a game, wherein the game rules align with a method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Presenting (i.e., displaying) game information (e.g., see at least claims 1, 7-9, 12, 17, and 18, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Receiving user input (e.g., see at least claims 1, 10, 12, and 18, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1-20 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claim 1 (e.g., a processor and presentation assembly) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent No. 7,819,742 to Chamberlain is cited for disclosing the conventional features of gaming machines including processors (e.g., see at least column 11, lines 14-16) and displays (e.g., see column 7, lines 12-25). Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 101.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the video game Mass Effect published by Microsoft Game Studios on November 20, 2007 in view of the video game Fortnite published by Epic Games in an update in December 2018 in a standalone Solo limited time mode.
As initial matter, the rejection is based on the actual published video games, but will be evidenced by additional supporting documents that are also prior art.
Mass Effect is evidenced by a Wiki article (Wiki Mass Effect), available online: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect) and a Youtube video by Fextralife, titled Mass Effect Legendary Edition Tips and Tricks Guide: 10 Things You Should Know (Mass Effect 1) dated May 14, 2021. Fextralife available online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RtWLj7WWVM).
As set forth above in the 112 rejection, the sequence around the “first user input” is unclear. The following rejection is made as best understood.
With regard to claim 1, Mass Effect discloses a method comprising:
outputting for display on a display of a computing device (e.g., see Fextralife at 8:35 shows game play on a display device), a master virtual character (e.g., see Fextralife at 5:32 that shows the main virtual character standing in front of two squad teammates, that are equivalent to slave virtual objects) and a first slave virtual object, wherein the master virtual character and the first slave virtual object are located in a virtual scene (e.g., see Fextralife at 5:32 that shows the main virtual character standing in front of two squad teammates, that are equivalent to slave virtual objects);
determining that a first attribute value of a first attribute of the first slave virtual object is less than a first threshold (e.g., see Fextralife at 8:42 that shows game play with health and shield indicators shown as line meters for each slave virtual object at the bottom center of the display screen, wherein the main characters health and shield indicators are displayed larger and above the slave virtual objects health and shield indicators);
based on the determining, establishing that the first slave virtual object is in an unhealthy state (e.g., see Fextralife at 8:42 that shows game play with health and shield indicators shown as line meters for each slave virtual object at the bottom center of the display screen, wherein the main characters health and shield indicators are displayed larger and above the slave virtual objects health and shield indicators);
receiving, from a user operating the computing device, a first user input;
based on the first user input, initiating an interaction operation between the master virtual character and a target virtual character (e.g., see Fextralife at 8:42 that shows game display where the main virtual character is targeting a target virtual character), wherein the target virtual character is a virtual character redeemed or defeated by the master virtual character prior to receipt of the first user input (e.g., see Fextralife at 8:42 that shows game display where the main virtual character is targeting a target virtual character);
transitioning the first slave virtual object from the unhealthy state to a healthy state (Mass Effect regenerates health for virtual characters over time when not being damaged by an enemy attack).
Mass Effect fails to expressly disclose the game concept of “siphoning” where a character’s health value is increased upon elimination of an enemy character. As mentioned above, Mass Effect replenishes a character’s health over time during game play if damaged, but not eliminated). Other known forms of health replenishment, include using a health object or being actively revived.
In the same field of endeavor, Fortnite teaches the use of siphoning health replenishment as evidenced by a Youtube video by hacz, titled How to get SIPHON FOR GETTING AN ELIMINATION in Fortnite Creative (tutorial) dated August 18, 2021 (e.g., see hacz at 0:46-0:54 that shows a demonstration of siphoning game functionality that increases a character’s health value after eliminating an opponent). Hacz is available online: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-uLsTiQARM)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Mass Effect with siphoning health as taught by Fortnite in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, siphoning health changes gaming strategy by making players either play more aggressive to earn additional health or play more passive to avoid losing health that can’t be easily regenerated.
Claims 12 and 18 are similar in scope to claim 1 and are analyzed in the same manner as set forth above in detail for claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, 13-15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mass Effect in view of Fortnite as applied to claims 1, 12, and 18 above, and further in view of the video game Super Smash Bros. by Nintendo and released on January 21, 1999.
As initial matter, this rejection is based on the actual video game of Super Smash Bros. but evidence of relevant features are available from a February 23, 2009 post on Smashboards).
Mass Effect in combination with Fortnite disclose all of the features set forth above but are silent regarding an inheriting skill feature.
In the same field of endeavor, Super Smash Bros. teaches an inheriting skill feature that allows a virtual character to inherit a skill by an opponent (e.g., see at least Smashboards post that states “Kirby can only copy an enemy’s Standard special move” including Lucario’s Aura Sphere skill). Smashboard is available online: (https://smashboards.com/threads/copy-ability-tricks-and-tactics.222800/).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Mass Effect with skill inheritance as taught by Super Smash Bros. in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, inheriting an enemy’s skill as interesting talent for a character to have that makes the game unpredictable, especially when the enemy is unaware of Kirby’s inheritance ability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8-11, 16, 20, and 22 would be allowed if incorporating all of the features of the base claim and overcome the 101 rejection. The prior art fails to disclose the recited switching features of claims 6, 16, and 20. Regarding claim 22, the prior art is silent regarding fusing two skills to make a third skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10, final paragraph, Applicant asserts that the claims recite a user input and a display, which are not mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity. Step 2A, prong one requires the identification of one or more abstract ideas. The Examiner has noted numerous recited features (listed above in detail) that are rules of playing a game and are abstract ideas.
On page 11, first paragraph, Applicant asserts that the claims are integrated into a practical application because claim features save processing time. As set forth, the Examiner made a 112 rejection seeking clarification on the timing sequence of claims 1, 12, and 18. Current claim 1 doesn’t appear to save time over the prior art because there appears to be additional user input (i.e., the first user input) required between the defeat of the target character and the slave object’s health increasing. The claim doesn’t appear to integrate into a practical application of anything other than rules for playing a video game.
On page 12, first paragraph, Applicant asserts that one or more the method steps are not well-understood, routine and conventional. The Examiner disagrees. The method steps are the foundation of the abstract idea. The additionally recited features of a processor (e.g., a computing device) and a display were addressed as well-understood, routine and conventional.
For at least these reasons, (as best understood in light of the 112 rejection), all pending claims remain ineligible subject matter.
On page 13, Applicant asserts that the current claims recite “based on the interaction operation, transitioning the first slave virtual object from the unhealthy state to a healthy state”. As set forth above, the time sequence is indefinite. For at least, this reason, it appears that Fortnite’s syphoning feature is equivalent to Applicant’s invention.
On page 13, second paragraph, Applicant’s asserts that the teaching of Super Smash Bros. is not appropriate because the user controlled character, not a slave object, receives an inherited skill. The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s position, but is relying upon Super Smash Bros. for a broad teaching of inheriting a skill to a game character. In this case, it would have been obvious to apply the inheriting skill to either the master character or the master character’s slave object since the master character and the slave character work together.
Applicant’s argument on page 13 (continued on page 14) related to fusing skills (claim 5) is persuasive and would be allowed if rewritten in independent form to address the claim objection, 112, and 101 issues.
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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
