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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 19, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, no English translation or concise explanation of relevance has been provided for the International Search Report for PCT/KR2023/016421, dated July 10, 2024. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract appears to be merely loosely related to the claimed invention and not considered a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent to which the invention pertains. Specifically, the Abstract relates to the motion and attacks of characters; however, the claims are directed toward the application of items to a character.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Furthermore, the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Method and Device for Applying an Item to a Character”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riot [US20210213361A1].
Regarding claim 1, Riot discloses:
A method, performed by an electronic device, of applying an item to a character in a game, the method comprising:
controlling progress of a first unit game among a plurality of unit games in which a plurality of users participate (Riot, [0012], “The one or more real-time battles can comprise four pair-matched battles, each battle involving two human players.”);
providing a first user terminal of a first user among the plurality of users with an item selection interface through which at least one of a plurality of items comprising an odd number of items is selectable (Riot, [0043], “This is when a player can pick his/her first champion from a carousel of champions. … A carousel of champions is a platform in which draftable champions are placed in the center of the platform and players are placed on the outside surrounding the draftable champions.”);
receiving a selection input for a first item among the plurality of items, from the first user terminal through the item selection interface (Riot, [0044], “the player can then run to the desired champion and touch it to draft it.”); and
applying the first item to a first user character of the first user based on the selection input for the first item (Riot, [0039], “an item can be combined with an already equipped item simply by dragging and dropping the item over to the champion with the equipped item.”).
Regarding claim 2, Riot discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising
determining an item selection order for the plurality of users based on a result of the first unit game (Riot, [0045], “The energy barrier can also open based on players' past performances such as a losing or winning streak. In some embodiments, the energy barriers of players having the lowest health will open first.”).
Regarding claim 3, Riot discloses:
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
after the receiving of the selection input for the first item from the first user terminal, receiving, based on the item selection order, a selection input for a second item among the plurality of items other than the first item, from a second user terminal of a second user among the plurality of users (Riot, [0023], “allow a second player, after the first player has selected a champion, from the group of players to select a champion from the group of selectable champions”); and
applying the second item to a second user character of the second user based on the selection input for the second item (Riot, Then the second user follows the same selection process as the first user. Riot, [0039].).
Regarding claim 4, Riot discloses:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of items displayed through the item selection interface
are randomly configured (Riot, [0075], “The selectable champions in lineup perimeter 610 can be populated randomly”), or
are configured based on at least one of a stat of the user character, an item worn by the user character, and a result of the first unit game.
Regarding claim 5, Riot discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein the applying the first item comprises
applying, to the first user character, the first item selected by the first user (Riot, [0039], “an item can be combined with an already equipped item simply by dragging and dropping the item over to the champion with the equipped item.”), and
further applying, to the first user character, items other than the first item and the second item among the plurality of items, based on the result of the first unit game (Riot, [0075], emphasis added, “The selectable champions in lineup perimeter 610 can be populated randomly or it can be based on the number of players in lineup perimeter 605. The type of champions in lineup perimeter 610 can also be populated based on attributes (e.g., rank, experiences, type of player) of one or more players of lineup perimeter 605.”).
Regarding claim 6, Riot discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the applying of the first item comprises
applying an effect of the first item to the first user character in a second unit game among the plurality of unit games, which is performed after the first unit game (Riot, [0031], “FIGS. 6A and 6B are example interfaces that enable players to draft champions and build a team in accordance with some aspects of the disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 7, Riot discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising
applying a third item to the first user character based on a distance between the first user character and the third item, in the first unit game (Riot, [0054], “Purchased items can be displayed in the inventory area 125. Champions and/or items from store 115 can be purchased by clicking, dragging, and dropping the champions and/or items onto bench 110 and/or inventory area 125.”; or Riot, [0057], “If an item is dropped (or appeared) on arena 105, it can be picked up by clicking and dragging the item icon to area 125.”).
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.
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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riot and Wang [US20140357380A1].
Regarding claim 8, Riot discloses:
The method of claim 7,
wherein the third item comprises
a first wearable item (Riot, [0057], “Inventory area 125 displays items such as weapons, supplies, trinkets, and other game items that are either purchasable or dropped by monsters or champions in the game.”).
But Riot does not teach the various methods of swapping inventory items as discussed in the limitations below.
Wang, however, discloses:
the applying of the third item comprises
applying the first wearable item to the first user character based on checking a slot of the first user character (Wang, [0028], “if the performance of the first prop is better than that of the second prop, the second prop is cancelled, and the first prop is equipped for the game user.” This requires checking the slot holding the “first prop” in some manner.), and
the applying of the first wearable item comprises,
based on the checking of the slot indicating absence of an item applied to the slot, automatically applying the first wearable item to the first user character (Wang, [0017], “According to one embodiment, during the process S101, the first prop of the game user is detected. Herein “first” neither indicates a sequence nor implies that a second prop must exist.”),
based on the checking of the slot indicating that a second wearable item having a lower grade attribute than a grade attribute of the first wearable item is applied to the slot, automatically release the application of the second wearable item to the first user character and applying the first wearable item (Wang, [0028], “if the performance of the first prop is better than that of the second prop, the second prop is cancelled, and the first prop is equipped for the game user.” This requires checking the slot holding the “first prop” in some manner.), and
based on the checking of the slot indicating that a third wearable item having a grade attribute higher than or identical to the grade attribute of the first wearable item is applied to the slot (Wang, [0020], “Otherwise, it is determined that the first prop has a worse performance than the second prop.”), releasing, based on receiving an item change input from the first user, the application of the third wearable item to the first user character and applying the first wearable item (Wang, See Fig 1, which illustrates a diagram displaying the following steps: 1. “Detect a first prop of a game user, the first prop not being equipped for the game user.” 2. “Compare the first prop with a second prop of the game user, the second prop being equipped for the game user and being in a same category as the first prop.” 3. “Equip the first prop for the game user in response to the first prop having a better performance than the second prop.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the autobattler game system and method of Riot the efficiency of equipping various items as taught by Wang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 9-17, the claims share similar limitations to claims 1-8. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm 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 at (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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights