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 .
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.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 17-18) recites:
A virtual object control method/ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium/electronic device comprising:
displaying a target virtual object, a second virtual object, and a first auxiliary virtual object associated with the target virtual object in a current virtual scene, wherein the second virtual object and the target virtual object are located in different camps separately;
reducing, in response to an attack operation performed by the second virtual object on the target virtual object, an activity state parameter of the target virtual object;
controlling, in response to the activity state parameter of the target virtual object being lower than a target threshold, the first auxiliary virtual object to generate a target auxiliary area for the target virtual object; and
setting the target virtual object located in the target auxiliary area to a protected state, wherein a first hit ratio of the attack operation performed by the second virtual object on the target virtual object in the protected state is lower than a second hit ratio of the attack operation performed by the second virtual object on the target virtual object outside the protected state.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “fundamental economic principles or practices “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "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." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: an electronic device) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: displaying a target virtual object, a second virtual object, and a first auxiliary virtual object associated with the target virtual object in a current virtual scene, where the second and target virtual objects are located in different camps separately; reducing, in response to an attack operation performed by the second virtual object on the target virtual object, an activity state parameter of the target virtual object; controlling, in response to the activity state parameter of the target virtual object being lower than a target threshold, the first auxiliary virtual object to generate a target auxiliary area for the target virtual object; and setting the target virtual object located in the target auxiliary area to a protected state, where a first hit ratio of the attack operation in the protected state is lower than a second hit ratio of the attack operation outside the protected state.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 17-18 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: non-transitory computer readable media, and one or more processors.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Cockrell, Jr., US 20070057464, discloses that computer systems for implementing games can be suitable general-purpose computers having a processor and memory and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69);
Geisner, US 20080242421, discloses processors can be general purpose processor for implementing online games and are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 24, 34, 52);
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other 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 additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-16, 19-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (ie: at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity because each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, the dependent claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 17-18 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Youtube video of “Vanishing Bomb | In-game Tutorial | THE FINALS” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTYnrcdQe4) (Youtube)
Regarding Claims 1, 17-18.
Youtube discloses a virtual object control method, performed by an electronic device, comprising: displaying a target virtual object, a second virtual object, and a first auxiliary virtual object associated with the target virtual object in a current virtual scene, wherein the second virtual object and the target virtual object are located in different camps separately (0:01-0:31. The video depicts a plurality of player-controlled avatar characters. In this case, the target virtual object is the player-controlled avatar that is played the video. There are second virtual objects in the form of enemy virtual avatars that are controlled by other players (ie: these enemy avatars are interpreted as being in different camps separate from the player character), as well as first auxiliary virtual objects in the form of avatars that represent players on the same team as the player character depicted in the video.);
reducing, in response to an attack operation performed by the second virtual object on the target virtual object, an activity state parameter of the target virtual object; controlling, in response to the activity state parameter of the target virtual object being lower than a target threshold, the first auxiliary virtual object to generate a target auxiliary area for the target virtual object (0:01-0:31. The video depicts how an attack operation is performed in the form of the player character throwing a ‘vanishing bomb’ within close proximity to himself in which the area where the ‘vanishing bomb’ explodes and player characters all within the general area of the explosion enters a protected stated (ie: invisibility); and
setting the target virtual object located in the target auxiliary area to a protected state, wherein a first hit ratio of the attack operation performed by the second virtual object on the target virtual object in the protected state is lower than a second hit ratio of the attack operation performed by the second virtual object on the target virtual object outside the protected state (0:01-0:31. The video depicts the player controlling the target virtual object throwing an object on the ground. The video depicts how the player’s character becomes invisible as a result. This is interpreted as the hit ratio (ie: the player getting shot) as being lower when in a protected state (ie: invisible) than when the character is outside the protected state (ie: visible to enemy players).)
PNG
media_image1.png
717
1277
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The image depicts how, upon throwing a ‘vanishing bomb’, a teammate player character can become invisible which results in the teammate player character being in a protected stated (ie: invisible) which would decrease the chance of said character being hit by an enemy character.
PNG
media_image2.png
716
1271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The image depicts how, when a player character throws a ‘vanishing bomb’ within close proximity to himself and a teammate player character, both players enter a protected state (ie: invisibility)
Examiner’s Notes
While the prior art used had posting date (Jan 14, 2026) which pre-dates the effective filing date of the claimed invention (Jan 10, 2024), the Examiner would like to point out “The Finals” game itself was released on December 7, 2023 which pre-dates the applicant’s effective filing date. Information regarding the game’s release date can be found on: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2073850/THE_FINALS/
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights