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 § 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 6-8 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.
Claim 6 recites two iterations of the limitation "a duration". It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same group" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites four iterations of the limitation "a marking operation of a location”. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 7 recites three iterations of the limitation "a third virtual object”. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 7 discloses “a third virtual object that is in a same group as the first virtual object” while also disclosing “a third virtual object that is in a different group as the first virtual object”. This is ambiguous because the limitations are mutually exclusive from one another. The Examiner does not understand how “a third virtual object” could be both in the “same” group as well as in a “different” group from the first virtual object. It should be either one or the other and not both.
Claim 8 recites two iterations of the limitation "a target location in an electronic map”. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
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 1-20are 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 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining, by a computing device, in response to a first trigger operation when a first virtual object is in a state, a message associated with the state, the state indicating a first behavior of the first virtual object in a virtual scene;
displaying, on an interaction interface, a shortcut message list comprising the message; and
transmitting the message in response to a second trigger operation on the message.
Claim 14 recites:
An apparatus, comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
obtain in response to a first trigger operation when a first virtual object is in a state, a message associated with the state, the state indicating a first behavior of the first virtual object in a virtual scene;
display, on an interaction interface, a shortcut message list comprising the message; and
transmit the message in response to a second trigger operation on the message.Claim 20 recites:A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause:
obtaining, in response to a first trigger operation when a first virtual object is in a state, a message associated with the state, the state indicating a first behavior of the first virtual object in a virtual scene;
displaying, on an interaction interface, a shortcut message list comprising the message; and
transmitting the message in response to a second trigger operation on the message.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “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: a computing device) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: obtaining in response to a first trigger operation when a first virtual object is in a state, a message associated with the state, the state indicating a first behavior of the first virtual object in a virtual scene; displaying, on an interaction interface, a shortcut message list comprising the message; and transmitting the message in response to a second trigger operation on the message.)
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, 14, and 20 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: computing device, processor, and memory.
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:
Rehill et al., US 10726678 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the graphical user interfaces are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device (Col 22, lines 44-47);
Fujimaki et al., US 20140114890 discloses that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a computer includes an input device, a central processing unit (CPU), a storage device (for example, a RAM) for storing data, a program memory (for example, a ROM) for storing a program, and an output device (paragraph 50);
Henderson et al., US 6378042 discloses that memory can be used for temporarily storing data in which each stored piece of data may be accessed independently of any other piece of data and the data in a RAM is stored at a particular location called an address (Col 1, lines 52-65);
DeLeon, US 20060116207, discloses that network communication between a central network computer system and the various gaming machines are conventional and well known in the field of gaming devices (paragraph 18);
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);
Wilson, US 20050277457, discloses that it is readily understood that the video games are normally computer controlled, and that the game-logic electronic circuitry for implementing the method for playing such a video game in a machine is well known and available to one skilled in the art (paragraph 28);
Reeves et al., US 20160063799 discloses that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are arranged to display information regarding a program, software application or other element associated with a computing device and are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 82);
Walker et al., US 20080039190 discloses that graphical user interfaces, including graphical buttons provided via touch screens, menus, etc., are well known in the art (paragraph 101);
Jackson et al., US 20030064800 discloses that the implementation of a touch-screen for making inputs for an electronic wagering game is extremely well known to one of ordinary skill (paragraph 18);
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 2-13, 15-19 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie et al., US 20250135341 (Xie).
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 20. Xie discloses a method/apparatus/non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising:
obtaining, by a computing device, in response to a first trigger operation when a first virtual object is in a state, a message associated with the state, the state indicating a first behavior of the first virtual object in a virtual scene (Fig 3-5; para 6-12, 43-44, 79-83, 121-124. Players can make a first trigger action, such as an input, which would reveal an interaction wheel where in which the player can choose from a plurality of actions to carry out, such a high five, hug, or handshake. The action is interpreted as being associated with the state of the player during game play.);
displaying, on an interaction interface, a shortcut message list comprising the message (Fig 5, elem 310, elem 502, 600; para 79, 86. The wheel of selectable action is interpreted as the interaction wheel with a shortcut message list in which the emoji are interpreted as the messages to be sent.); and
transmitting the message in response to a second trigger operation on the message (Fig 5-6; para 86. When the player selects the action, that is interpreted as the second trigger action.).
Regarding Claims 2, 15.Xie further discloses wherein the first virtual object is a virtual character associated with a first account configured for logging in to the virtual scene (Fig 3-6; para 12, 34, 41. Massively multiplayer online game utilize player accounts in which each individual player must have their own respective accounts so they can join in a virtual scene together in multiplayer fashion.); and
the transmitting the message comprises: transmitting, in response to the second trigger operation on the message, the message to a second account of one or more second virtual objects associated with the first virtual object (Fig 5-6; para 37, 44, 56-54, 86. The message is transmitted to another player that is associated with the first player, such as a teammate).
Regarding Claims 3, 16.
Xie discloses further discloses wherein the message is associated with a first operation, and the method further comprises:
displaying an identifier of the first operation and the message together in the shortcut message list (Fig 4, elem 311; para 86. An icon representing the emoji is interpreted as an identifier.); and
setting, in the shortcut message list, a display format of the message to a target format configured for prompting that the message is associated with the first operation (Fig 4-6, elem 311, 502, 600; para 86, 91, 158. The figures depict a display format in the form of icons in which there is a target format, such as the two icons from both players coming together to form a high five.).
Regarding Claims 4, 17.
Xie discloses further discloses performing the first operation in response to the second trigger operation on the message (para 86. When a player selects the high five emoji, this is interpreted as the second trigger operation.).
Regarding Claims 5, 18.
Xie discloses further discloses wherein the message is associated with the first operation, and the transmitting the message comprises:
transmitting the message in response to the second trigger operation of a first type on the message (Fig 5, elem 502; para 86. When the player selects a first type of message, such as a high five icon, a high five emoji is transmitted); and
transmitting the message in response to the second trigger operation of a second type on the message, and performing the first operation, the second trigger operation of the first type being different from the second trigger operation of a second type (Fig 5; para 43, 86. The player can choose a type of actions that is different from high five, such as hugging, and shaking hands.)
Regarding Claim 6.
Xie discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the transmitting the message in response to the second trigger operation of the second type on the message, and performing the first operation comprises:
displaying a long-press progress bar in response to the second trigger operation, the long-press progress bar indicating a duration of a long-press operation (para 69); and
based on that the long-press progress bar has reached a preset progress threshold, transmitting the message, and performing the first operation (para 69, 72, 84, 106. Long pressing/touch holding as an input is disclosed.); or
displaying a duration of the long-press operation in response to the second trigger operation that represents the long-press operation on the message (para 69, 72, 84, 106); and
based on that the duration of the long-press operation has reached a preset duration threshold, transmitting the message, and performing the first operation (para 69, 72, 84, 106).
Regarding Claims 12, 19.
Xie discloses further discloses wherein the displaying, on the interaction interface, the shortcut message list comprising the message comprises:
displaying the message at a top location of the shortcut message list (Fig 4); and
displaying the message and a plurality of additional messages that are not associated with a state of the first virtual object in the shortcut message list (Fig 4; para 43, 86. The figure depicts how there can be a plurality of other additional messages in the form of actions that are not a ‘high five’).
Regarding Claim 13.
Xie further discloses, based on that the message associated with the state is not obtained, displaying a plurality of messages that are not associated with the state of the first virtual object in the shortcut message list (Fig 4, elem 310; para 43, 86. There are other selectable actions that would not be associated with ‘high fiving’ for the virtual character).
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 7-11 have no prior art rejection but currently stand rejected under USC § 101.
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