DETAILED ACTION
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 12 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. A method for displaying a location of a first virtual character, the method comprising:
displaying the first virtual character located in a first virtual scene;
displaying, based on a first operation on the first virtual character, a first interface element corresponding to the first virtual character, the first interface element being configured to indicate a location of the first virtual character; and
based on a second operation on the first interface element and the location of the first virtual character changing from the first virtual scene to a second virtual scene,
displaying the second virtual scene in which the first virtual character is located, and displaying the first virtual character in the second virtual scene.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Process.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, the italicized limitations are drawn to a displaying and locating of a virtual character in a virtual environment and based upon interacting with an interface element causing the virtual character to be located in a second different virtual environment or scene.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): circuitry and processors.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed circuitry and processors. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicants own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0032] The terminal device 10 includes, but is not limited to, an electronic device such as a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a smart speech interaction device, a game console, a wearable device, a multimedia playback device, a personal computer (PC), an in-vehicle terminal, and a smart household appliance. A client of a target application (such as a game application) may be installed in the terminal device 10. In some aspects, the target application may be an application that needs to be downloaded and installed, or may be a click-to-use application. This is not limited in the aspects of this disclosure.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §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.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 and 12 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silbey et al (US 2013/0111359 in view of Hatlelid et al (US 6772195)
As per claim 1, Silbey discloses:
displaying the first virtual character located in a first virtual scene; (Silbey discloses the displaying of a first character in a first virtual scene) (Silbey Fig 5, 0029, 0037)
displaying, …, a first interface element corresponding to the first virtual character, the first interface element being configured to indicate a location of the first virtual character; and (Silbey 0019 – 0022)
based on a second operation on the first interface element and the location of the first virtual character changing from the first virtual scene to a second virtual scene, (Silbey discloses jumping the player to the second location) (Silbey 0023)
displaying the second virtual scene in which the first virtual character is located and displaying the first virtual character in the second virtual scene. (Silbey discloses displaying the player in the second location) (Silbey 0023)
Silbey fails to disclose:
based on a first operation on the first virtual character
However in a similar field of endeavor, Hatlelid teaches a system wherein a user may click on an avatar to then cause the system to relocate the player character to a location of a second player engaged in a chat cluster, wherein a join button is displayed in response to a first user clicking on a player in the second location (Hatelid 4:23 – 63)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Silbey in view of Hatlelid to use a known technique to modify similar devices by providing an input mechanism that pops up a join button in response to clicking a virtual character at a second location. This would be an intuitive way for a user to select the exact location that they would like to relocate to when there are multiple potential second locations.
As per claim 2, switching from displaying the first virtual scene to displaying the second virtual scene; and displaying a first location region in the second virtual scene and the first virtual character located in the first location region. (Silbey discloses the switching of the display from a first scene to a second scene when the character is relocated) (Silbey 0023)
As per claim 3, based on the second operation on the first interface element and the location of the first virtual character moving from a second location region of the first virtual scene, displaying a third location region in the first virtual scene, and displaying the first virtual character located in the third location region. (Combination of Silbey in view of Hatlelid, wherein Hatlelid teaches a user being able to select multiple characters to move amongst multiple (I.e. second and third) locations) (Hatlelid 4:23 – 63)
As per claim 4, wherein the first interface element displays at least one of: identification information of the first virtual character or the first virtual scene in which the first virtual character is located. (Silbey 0027)
As per claim 5, receiving update information indicating an update to one of a virtual image of the first virtual character and the identification information of the first virtual scene in which the first virtual character is located; and updating the one of the virtual image of the first virtual character displayed in the first interface element and the identification information of the first virtual scene in which the first virtual character is located based on the update information. (Silbey discloses the ongoing monitoring of player locations to determine the current location of the player and updating the location of the player so other can possibly jump to them) (Silbey 0023, 0029)
As per claim 6, displaying a first control element based on the first operation on the first virtual character; and displaying the first interface element based on a third operation on the first control element. (Combination of Silbey in view of Hatlelid, wherein Hatlelid teaches a user being able to select multiple characters to move amongst multiple (I.e. second and third) locations and thus display multiple different control elements) (Hatlelid 4:23 – 63)
As per claim 7, based on the first operation on the first virtual character, displaying the first control element when a first permission associated with the first virtual character allows locating by another user account, wherein the first control element is not displayed when the first permission is not granted. Silbey discloses the permitting of jumps based upon permissions being granted and displaying the ability to jump when granted) (Silbey 0025, 0028)
As per claim 8, based on a first interaction operation, moving a second virtual character to the location of the first virtual character in the second virtual scene. (Combination of Silbey in view of Hatlelid, wherein multiple users or players are able to jump to different virtual scenes or locations to chat and interact)(Hatlelid 4:23 – 63)
As per claim 9, displaying an interaction animation between the first virtual character and the second virtual character in the second virtual scene based on a second interaction operation. (Combination of Silbey in view of Hatlelid, (Silbey 0022, 0029) (Hatlelid Fig 1A, 2A)
As per claim 10, wherein the first interface element is displayed in a first display style when a user account associated with the first virtual character is in an online state; the first interface element is displayed in a second display style when the user account associated with the first virtual character is in an offline state; and the first display style is different from the second display style. M(Silbey discloses the displaying of different status or the displaying or not displaying of the jump button in relation to a players online status) (Silbey 0026)
As per claim 12, displaying at least one selectable option in response to a third operation on the first interface element corresponding to the first virtual character, wherein the at least one selectable option includes at least one of: a first option configured to control a second virtual character to enter the second virtual scene in which the first virtual character is located; a second option configured to invite the first virtual character to enter a different virtual scene in which the second virtual character is located; and a third option configured to initiate joint entry of the first virtual character and the second virtual character into a third virtual scene. (Silbey discloses the inviting of a first character to join a second character where they are located.) (Silbey 0035)
Independent claim(s) 12, 13 and 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Silbey and Hatlelid based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Independent claim(s) 14 – 19 is/are made obvious by the combination of Silbey and Hatlelid based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2 - 7, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silbey et al (US 2013/0111359 in view of Hatlelid et al (US 6772195) in view of Michelman et al (US 2002/0075309)
As per claim 11, Silbey fails to disclose:
based on a movement operation on the first interface element, adjusting a display location of the first interface element.
However in a similar field of endeavor, Michelman discloses a system wherein an interface element displaying information can be moved around by a user as they desire in relation to a move input in order to move the element on the GUI. (Michelman Abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Silbey in view of Michelman to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of a moveable display element that displays information to a user. This would be beneficial as the player would be able to move the element around and not block areas of the screen that are important.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
9/18/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights