Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-10-01)
Rejection types: 101 - Patent-Eligible Subject Matter, 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
CLAIMS

What is claimed is:

1\. A virtual prop control method performed by a computer device, the method comprising:
displaying, in response to an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop, the virtual shelter prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the virtual shelter prop being used for sheltering the controlled virtual object;
determining a corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object in response to detecting a behavior of the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene; and
displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene based on the corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object.
2\. The method according to claim 1, wherein the equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop comprises any one of the following:
a pickup operation on the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene; and
a trigger operation on a target equipment control for controlling the controlled virtual object to perform an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop.
3\. The method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene based on the corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object comprises:
determining, based on the behavior type of the controlled virtual object, a motion parameter corresponding to the behavior type, the motion parameter being used for indicating a movement path of the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene; and
displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene according to the motion parameter.
4\. The method according to claim 1, wherein the virtual shelter prop comprises an observation window for displaying an observable partial virtual scene.
5\. The method according to claim 1, wherein the controlled virtual object is equipped with a target virtual prop for launching an attack on other virtual objects; after the displaying, in response to an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop, the virtual shelter prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the method further comprises:
determining an interaction type corresponding to the controlled virtual object in response to an interaction operation initiated by the controlled virtual object to the other virtual objects using the target virtual prop; and
updating a display state of the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene based on the interaction type.
6\. The method according to claim 5, wherein the updating a display state of the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene based on the interaction type comprises any one of the following:
moving the virtual shelter prop from the first position to a second position of the controlled virtual object for display in response to the interaction type being a first interaction type, and displaying that the virtual shelter prop at the second position does not shelter the target virtual prop; and
erecting the target virtual prop at a reference position of the virtual shelter prop in response to the interaction type being a second interaction type, and zooming in and displaying the virtual shelter prop.
7\. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
determining a hit region on the virtual shelter prop in response to an operation of hitting the virtual shelter prop of the controlled virtual object, different hit regions on the virtual shelter prop corresponding to different damage information and hit effects, the hit effects comprising an audio effect and a visual effect;
determining damage information of the virtual shelter prop based on the hit region on the virtual shelter prop; and
displaying a hit effect corresponding to the hit region in the virtual scene.
8\. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
triggering, in response to a distance between the controlled virtual object and other virtual objects being smaller than or equal to a reference distance, the controlled virtual object to attack the other virtual objects using the virtual shelter prop.
9\. A computer device, comprising one or more processors and one or more memories, the one or more memories storing at least one computer program, the at least one computer program being loaded and executed by the one or more processors to cause the computer device to implement a virtual prop control method comprising:
displaying, in response to an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop, the virtual shelter prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the virtual shelter prop being used for sheltering the controlled virtual object;
determining a corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object in response to detecting a behavior of the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene; and
displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene based on the corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object.

10\. The computer device according to claim 9, wherein the equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop comprises any one of the following:
a pickup operation on the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene; and
a trigger operation on a target equipment control for controlling the controlled virtual object to perform an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop.

11\. The computer device according to claim 9, wherein the displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene based on the corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object comprises:
determining, based on the behavior type of the controlled virtual object, a motion parameter corresponding to the behavior type, the motion parameter being used for indicating a movement path of the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene; and
displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene according to the motion parameter.

12\. The computer device according to claim 9, wherein the virtual shelter prop comprises an observation window for displaying an observable partial virtual scene.

13\. The computer device according to claim 9, wherein the controlled virtual object is equipped with a target virtual prop for launching an attack on other virtual objects; after the displaying, in response to an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop, the virtual shelter prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the method further comprises:
determining an interaction type corresponding to the controlled virtual object in response to an interaction operation initiated by the controlled virtual object to the other virtual objects using the target virtual prop; and
updating a display state of the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene based on the interaction type.

14\. The computer device according to claim 13, wherein the updating a display state of the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene based on the interaction type comprises any one of the following:
moving the virtual shelter prop from the first position to a second position of the controlled virtual object for display in response to the interaction type being a first interaction type, and displaying that the virtual shelter prop at the second position does not shelter the target virtual prop; and
erecting the target virtual prop at a reference position of the virtual shelter prop in response to the interaction type being a second interaction type, and zooming in and displaying the virtual shelter prop.

15\. The computer device according to claim 9, wherein the method further comprises:
determining a hit region on the virtual shelter prop in response to an operation of hitting the virtual shelter prop of the controlled virtual object, different hit regions on the virtual shelter prop corresponding to different damage information and hit effects, the hit effects comprising an audio effect and a visual effect;
determining damage information of the virtual shelter prop based on the hit region on the virtual shelter prop; and
displaying a hit effect corresponding to the hit region in the virtual scene.

16\. The computer device according to claim 9, wherein the method further comprises:
triggering, in response to a distance between the controlled virtual object and other virtual objects being smaller than or equal to a reference distance, the controlled virtual object to attack the other virtual objects using the virtual shelter prop.

17\. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing at least one computer program, the at least one computer program being loaded and executed by a processor of a computer device to cause the computer device to implement a virtual prop control method comprising:
displaying, in response to an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop, the virtual shelter prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the virtual shelter prop being used for sheltering the controlled virtual object;
determining a corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object in response to detecting a behavior of the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene; and
displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene based on the corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object.

18\. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17, wherein the displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene based on the corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object comprises:
determining, based on the behavior type of the controlled virtual object, a motion parameter corresponding to the behavior type, the motion parameter being used for indicating a movement path of the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene; and
displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene according to the motion parameter.

19\. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17, wherein the controlled virtual object is equipped with a target virtual prop for launching an attack on other virtual objects;
after the displaying, in response to an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop, the virtual shelter prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the method further comprises:
determining an interaction type corresponding to the controlled virtual object in response to an interaction operation initiated by the controlled virtual object to the other virtual objects using the target virtual prop; and updating a display state of the N irtual shelter prop in the virtual scene based on the interaction type.

20\. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 19, wherein the updating a display state of the virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene based on the interaction type comprises any one of the following:
moving the virtual shelter prop from the first position to a second position of the controlled virtual object for display in response to the interaction type being a first interaction type, and displaying that the virtual shelter prop at the second position does not shelter the target virtual prop; and
erecting the target virtual prop at a reference position of the virtual shelter prop in response to the interaction type being a second interaction type, and zooming in and displaying the virtual shelter prop. 031384-7420-US31 031384-7420-US32 031384-7420-US33 031384-7420-US34 031384-7420-US35 031384-7420-US36

OFFICE 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 to 20 (independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, and their dependent claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are drawn to a device, a method, and a computer-readable medium, so are statutory classes under 101.  The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons.  Independent Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below; the abstract idea is underlined and the structural limitations are not.  The dependent claims have no more structure than the independent claim and fail 101 for similar reasons.
A virtual prop control method performed by a computer device, the method comprising: (processing data according to the rules of a game)
displaying, in response to an equipment operation on a virtual shelter prop, the virtual shelter prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the virtual shelter prop being used for sheltering the controlled virtual object; (accepting input from a player, processing data according to the rules of a game, and displaying the result to a player)
determining a corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object in response to detecting a behavior of the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene; and (accepting input from a player, processing data according to the rules of a game, and displaying the result to a player)
displaying that the virtual shelter prop moves with the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene based on the corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object. (accepting input from a player, processing data according to the rules of a game, and displaying the result to a player)
The claims taken together or individually do not represent an improvement to the abstract idea in an ordered combination.  It is unclear what type of shelter the virtual shelter prop is (house, shield, building, etc.), what type of object the virtual object is (weapon, sports equipment, etc.) or what type of game is being played (action, combat, sports, role-playing, etc.)  It is unclear what type of behavior the corresponding behavior type is.  The claims do not cite specific processor or memory structures for processing data in memory according to the rules of a game.  The claims do not cite specific input structures such as touchscreens, touchpads, directional pads, joysticks, trackballs, keyboards, mice, cameras, or microphones.  The claims do not cite specific output structures such as screens, displays, or speakers.  The claims do not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computing device or gaming device since they do not represent an improvement in processor speed, memory management, random number generation, thermal management, ergonomics, network speed and management (such as load balancing or rerouting of packets), bus speed and management, authentication, encryption, graphics rendering, or reduced instruction sets for carrying out complex operations (such as RISC processors).  Applying an abstract idea to a computer is not patent-eligible (Alice, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf, page 12).  Electronic recordkeeping, obtaining data, adjusting balances, issuing automated instructions, creating and maintaining accounts are typical computer functions (Alice, page 15).  Requiring the use of a computer to implement the claim does not make it patent-eligible (pages 14 & 15).  Communications controllers, data storage units, and data processing systems are typical computer structures (Alice, page 16).  Calculation, storage, and transmission are basic computer functions (Alice, page 16).  Claims cannot simply be a draftsman’s art (Alice, pages 14 & 16).
Cloud Satchel quoting Bancorp: “To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not.”  In Bancorp, the independent claims did not require a computer (at 1431).  In Bancorp, the system and method claims were equivalent for patentability under 101 (at 1432).  Bancorp’s method claims did not require a computer and were not 101-compliant (at 1433).  A computer must be integral to the claimed invention (Bancorp at 1433).  A computer used in the claim only for its most basic functions does not make the claim 101-eligible (Bancorp at 1433).  Bancorp’s use of computers to track, reconcile, and administer insurance policies only used a computer’s most basic functions, adding nothing to 101 compliance (1434).  Limiting the claims to a particular field of use, such as the insurance market, does not fail to preempt the abstract idea (Bancorp at 1434 & 1435).  In Amdocs (113 USPQ2d 1565) at 1571, the fact that the claims cannot be carried out by a human being alone does not mean that they are not an abstract idea under 101 (citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359-60 and Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351).
The examiner points the applicants to Claim 33 of U.S. patent 5,970,479 A which was the representative claim in the Alice decision.  These claim limitations are carried out on presumably a general purpose computer although such is not explicitly cited.  The claims are certainly not carried out by specific hardware.
A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;
(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;
(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party’s shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order, and
(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing on[e] of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.
The examiner points the applicants to representative Claim 19 of U.S. patent 7,818,399 B1 which was at issue in the DDR Holdings case.  This claim in the DDR Holdings case was 101-compliant because it improved the functioning of the computer itself, namely rendering web pages in a web browser.  The claims in DDR Holdings cited what was done, and specific steps for how it was done, thus not invoking a judicial exception by preempting all possible ways of what the claim is trying to do.  The claims met the second step of the Alice analysis by improving on how web page rendering transactions were carried out over a network such as the Internet, versus how such transactions had been done before.
A system useful in an outsource provider serving web pages offering commercial opportunities, the system comprising:
(a) a computer store containing data, for each of a plurality of first web pages, defining a plurality of visually perceptible elements, which visually perceptible elements correspond to the plurality of first web pages;
(i) wherein each of the first web pages belongs to one of a plurality of web page owners;
(ii) wherein each of the first web pages displays at least one active link associated with a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity of a selected one of a plurality of merchants; and
(iii) wherein the selected merchant, the outsource provider, and the owner of the first web page displaying the associated link are each third parties with respect to one other;
(b) a computer server at the outsource provider, which computer server is coupled to the computer store and programmed to:
(i) receive from the web browser of a computer user a signal indicating activation of one of the links displayed by one of the first web pages;
(ii) automatically identify as the source page the one of the first web pages on which the link has been activated;
(iii) in response to identification of the source page, automatically retrieve the stored data corresponding to the source page; and
(iv) using the data retrieved, automatically generate and transmit to the web browser a second web page that displays: (A) information associated with the commerce object associated with the link that has been activated, and (B) the plurality of visually perceptible elements visually corresponding to the source page.
The examiner finds that wagering games are all rather similar: accepting a wager, playing the game according to the rules comprising generating random outcomes according to rules, determining winning outcomes, determining how much is to be paid for a winning outcome, and paying out the winnings.  This breakdown of the wagering claim language is similar to that in precedential case in re Smith (in re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), appeal 2015-1664, U.S. patent application 12/912,410).
Claim 1 at hand in in re Smith is as follows:
1. A method of conducting a wagering game comprising:
[a]) a dealer providing at least one deck of physical playing cards and shuffling the physical playing cards to form a random set of physical playing cards;
[b]) the dealer accepting at least one first wager from each participating player on a player game hand against a banker’s/dealer’s hand;
[c]) the dealer dealing only two cards from the random set of physical playing cards to each designated player and two cards to the banker/dealer such that the designated player and the banker/ dealer receive the same number of exactly two random physical playing cards;
[d]) the dealer examining respective hands to determine in any hand has a Natural 0 count from totaling count from cards, defined as the first two random physical playing cards in a hand being a pair of 5’s, 10’s, jacks, queens or kings;
[e]) the dealer resolving any player versus dealer wagers between each individual player hand that has a Natural 0 count and between the dealer hand and all player hands where a Natural 0 is present in the dealer hand, while the dealer exposes only a single card to the players;
[f]) as between each player and the dealer where neither hand has a Natural 0, the dealer allowing each player to elect to take a maximum of one additional card or standing pat on the initial two card player hand, while still having seen only one dealer card;
[g]) the dealer/banker remaining pat within a first certain predetermined total counts and being required to take a single hit within a second predetermined total counts, where the first total counts range does not overlap the second total counts range;
[h]) after all possible additional random physical playing cards have been dealt, the dealer comparing a value of each designated player’s hand to a final value of the banker’s/dealer’s hand wherein said value of the designated player’s hand and the banker’s/dealer’s hand is in a range of zero to nine points based on a pre-established scoring system wherein aces count as one point, tens and face cards count as zero points and all other cards count as their face value and wherein a two-digit hand total is deemed to have a value corresponding to the one’s digit of the two-digit total;
[i]) the dealer resolving the wagers based on whether the designated player’s hand or the banker’s/dealer’s hand is nearest to a value of 0.
Similarly to the present claims, the claim at hand in in re Smith accepted wagers from players (steps a & b), played the game according to the rules of the game comprising generating random outcomes (steps c to g), determining what the winning conditions are and how much to pay out (step h), and making the winning payouts (step i).  The card game of in re Smith would be identical played in a card and table format or in an electronic format.
The examiner points the applicants to the representative claim at hand in non-precedential Planet Bingo.  The hardware limitations of the CPU, memory, I/O terminal, and printer are only cited in clause (a).  The rest of the claim is functional claim language describing a bingo game that would occur identically in paper ticket format or computerized format with the play of the game and the game results being identical in either format.  The court held that the claims in Planet Bingo were ineligible under 101.
A method for playing a game of Bingo which comprises the steps of:
(a) providing a system for managing a game of Bingo which comprises: a computer with a central processing unit (CPU) and with a memory and with a printer connected to the CPU; an input and output terminal connected to the CPU and memory of the computer; and a program in the computer enabling:
(i) input of at least two sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by a player for repetitive play in games of Bingo over a period of time;
(ii) storage of the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player as a group in the memory of the computer;
(iii) assignment of a player identifier unique to the player for the group having the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player wherein the player identifier is assigned to the group for multiple sessions of Bingo;
(iv) retrieval of the group using the player identifier;
(v) selection from the group by the player of at least one of the sets of Bingo numbers preselected by the player and stored in the memory of the computer as the group for play in a selected game of Bingo in a specific session of Bingo wherein a number of sets of Bingo numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is less than a total number of sets of Bingo numbers in the group;
(vi) addition by the computer of a control number for the set of Bingo numbers which is selected by the player for play in the selected game of Bingo;
(vii) output of a receipt with the control number, the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo, a price for the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo, a date of the selected game of Bingo and optionally a computer identification number; and
(viii) output for verification of a winning set of Bingo numbers by means of the control number which is input into the computer by a manager of the game of Bingo;
(b) playing the game of Bingo using the set of Bingo numbers wherein the player signals a Bingo to indicate the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is the winning set of Bingo numbers; and
(c) verifying the winning set of Bingo numbers with the control number with the program.
The Bascom decision is relevant to the present claims (U.S. CAFC, 2015-1763, decided June 27th, 2016).  The Bascom decision required that the ordered limitations of the claims taken together add something significantly more to the abstract idea even though the individual limitations were known in the prior art.  The claim at hand in Bascom was found to comply with 101 in light of Alice.  Page 15 of Bascom:
“However, we disagree with the district court’s analysis of the ordered combination of limitations. In light of Mayo and Alice, it is of course now standard for a § 101 inquiry to consider whether various claim elements simply recite “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies].” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. The district court’s analysis in this case, however, looks similar to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, except lacking an explanation of a reason to combine the limitations as claimed. The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”  Page 20 of Bascom: “While the claims of the ’606 patent are directed to the abstract idea of filtering content, BASCOM has adequately alleged that the claims pass step two of Alice’s two-part framework. BASCOM has alleged that an inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of claim limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea. We find nothing on this record that refutes those allegations as a matter of law or justifies dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). We therefore vacate the district court’s order granting AT&T’s motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) and remand so that the case may proceed.”
The McRO decision (U.S. CAFC, 2015-1080 to 2015-1101, decided Sept. 13th, 2016) is relevant to the present claims.  The McRO decision stated that an ordered combination of claim limitations can meet the requirements of 101 in light of the Alice decision by improving over what has been already done in the prior art without preempting an abstract idea.  Pages 25 and 26 of McRO: “The limitations in claim 1 prevent preemption of all processes for achieving automated lip-synchronization of 3-D characters. McRO has demonstrated that motion capture animation provides an alternative process for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions. Even so, we have recognized that “the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The narrower concern here is whether the claimed genus of rules preempts all techniques for automating 3-D animation that rely on rules. Claim 1 requires that the rules be rendered in a specific way: as a relationship between subsequences of phonemes, timing, and the weight to which each phoneme is expressed visually at a particular timing (as represented by the morph weight set). The specific structure of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption of all rules-based means of automating lip synchronization, unless the limits of the rules themselves are broad enough to cover all possible approaches. There has been no showing that any rules-based lip synchronization process must use rules with the specifically claimed characteristics.”  Page 27 of McRO: “Here, the structure of the limited rules reflects a specific implementation not demonstrated as that which “any [animator] engaged in the search for [an automation process] would likely have utilized.” Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2119–20 (quotation marks omitted). By incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques. See Morse, 56 U.S. at 113. When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177). Claim 1 of the ’576 patent, therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.”  The claim limitations individually or taken together add nothing significantly more in an ordered combination to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 to 3 and 7 to 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian (Chinese patent publication CN 110721469 A, cited on the IDS).
As to Claims 1 to 3 and 7 to 20: Lian discloses a method for shielding a virtual object in a virtual environment (Paras. 44 to 71, Figs. 1 & 2): a first user uses a first terminal to control a first virtual object in a virtual environment to perform activity, the activity comprising: crawling, using a virtual prop to harm other virtual objects, etc.; the user controls the virtual object to take a cover prop out of a backpack for equipping the cover prop; the cover prop shields the virtual object in a shielding direction when the cover prop is equipped; when the user controls the virtual object to attack a hostile virtual object, the cover prop has a defensive function and can help the virtual object to defend against the attack of the hostile virtual object (equivalent to in response to an equipment operation on a virtual cover prop, displaying the virtual cover prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the virtual cover prop being used for shielding the controlled virtual object); when a movement operation on the virtual object is received, the cover prop and the virtual object are controlled to move in a same direction (equivalent to displaying that the virtual cover prop moves with the controlled virtual object).  Upon comparison, the present claims differ from Lian by: in response to detection of a behavior of the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene, displaying, on the basis of a behavior type corresponding to the controlled virtual object, that the virtual cover prop moves according to the controlled virtual object.  Page 5 of machine translation: “Referring to FIG. 1, which illustrates a schematic of an embodiment environment provided by one exemplary embodiment of the present application. the implementation in the environment comprises: the first terminal 120, the server 140 and the second terminal 160.  The first terminal 120 is installed and running an application program which supports the virtual environment.  The application program may be a virtual reality application program, three-dimensional map program, military simulation program, the FPS game, MOBA game, many people gunfight survival game in the any one kind of. the first terminal 120 is a terminal used by the first user, the first virtual object of the first user using the first terminal 120 located in the virtual environment for activity, the activity including, but not limited to: adjust body posture, crawling, walking, running, riding, jumping, driving, throwing, shooting, switching virtual property, virtual property use damage other virtual objects and the pickup property, using shelter to shelter or defence in at least one. a schematic of the first virtual object is of the first virtual character, such as simulation figure object or cartoon character object.  The first terminal 120 connected to the server 140 through a wireless network or a wired network.”  Pages 8 and 9 of the machine translation: “Referring to FIG. 4, there is shown a flow diagram for method of shielding the virtual objects in the virtual environment of the application to another exemplary embodiment of the present invention.  The other terminals of the first terminal 120 or the second terminal embodiment of the invention shown in FIG. 1 by the method for implementation in the environment 160 or the example implementation in the environment, the method comprises the following steps.  Step 401, displaying the virtual object and concealing properties, shelter property in the virtual environment for virtual object to shield.  Referring to step 201 the specific content of the step, the present invention no longer here.  Step 402, when the pickup range shelter property of the virtual object, and receives the pickup operation of the shelter, the manipulation virtual object pickup properties.  Referring to step 202 the specific content of the step, the present invention no longer here.  Step 403, when receiving the equipment operation of concealing property, control shelter shielding direction from the target to shield the virtual object.  Referring to step 203 the specific content of the step, the present invention no longer here.  Step 404, when receiving the movement operation of the virtual object, obtaining the target speed shelter property corresponding to the attenuation parameter, the target speed attenuation parameter shelter property attenuation effect of the moving speed of the virtual object.  Indeed, when the user operating the virtual object using the shelter, the shelter property will increase the load of the virtual object so as to be the moving speed of the virtual object have a damping effect. In order to improve the sense of reality of the user game, in one possible embodiment, this step comprises the following contents: content of a, obtaining the initial speed attenuation parameter property integrity of shelter property and concealing property, attack damage integrity of property and concealing property by the correlation.”  Lian discloses that the virtual object can perform behavior activities in the virtual scene; and when the virtual object needs to carry a prop to move, it is determined according to actual requirements that a corresponding prop has a different following mode under a different behavior type.  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for adaptively detecting a behavior of the virtual object, and displaying, on the basis of a behavior type, that the prop moves with the virtual object are common general knowledge.
Claim(s) 4 to 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian in view of “Rainbow Six Wiki Montange” (cited on the IDS).
As to Claims 4 to 6: Claim 4 is discloses at “Rainbow Six.”  “Rainbow Six) discloses introduction of a game character Montagne in Rainbow Six (see the webpage text, paragraph 1 to the last paragraph, 00:00 s-01:29 s in a first video in a webpage): (all times in the video cited as minutes:seconds) a virtual character Montagne is equipped with a shield Le Roc; it can be known from 00:00 s-01:29 s in the video that the shield Le Roc comprises an observation window; the observation window is used for displaying a Virtual environment.  “Rainbow Six” discloses claims 5 and 6 at (00:00 minutes, seconds to 01:29 minutes, seconds in a first video in a webpage) that: when a shield holding object Montagne uses a gun prop to shoot, there may be two shooting modes; a first mode is to remove the shield for shooting (see 00:32 s, 00:44 s-00:45 s, and 00:46 s-00:47 s in the video); and a second mode is to assume that the gun prop is shot on the shield without removing the shield.  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.   in order to display a corresponding shield-holding shooting mode, determining an interaction type in response to a virtual object using a virtual prop to initiate an interaction, displaying a display state of a corresponding virtual prop in a virtual environment on the basis of the interaction type, and displaying a virtual cover prop in an enlarged mode in the case of the interaction type of mounting the virtual prop on the virtual cover prop are common general knowledge.
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
This amendment responds to the office action mailed October 1, 2024. In the office action, the Examiner:
" rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more;
" rejected claims 1-3 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian
(CN 110721469 A); and
" rejected claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian, in view
of "Rainbow Six Wiki Montange".
I
NTERVIEW SUMMARY
Applicant's attorneys thank Examiner Hoel for the opportunity to discuss the application during a telephone interview on December 3, 2024 with Yalei Sun. In the interview, the Examiner agreed that amending claim 1 would overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 and §103 but requires an updated search. Claim 1 has been amended accordingly. Analogous amendments have been made to claims 9 and 17.
REMARKS CONCERNING CLAIMS
Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended.
Support for the amendments can be found in at least paragraph [0080] and Figures 7 and 8 of the application as filed. No new matter has been added.
With respect to all amendments, Applicant has not dedicated or abandoned any
unclaimed subject matter. Moreover, Applicant has not acquiesced to any characterizations of the invention, nor any rejections or objections of the claims, made by the Examiner. Moreover, the Applicant hereby rescinds any prior disclaimer of claim scope, to the extent they exist, made during the prosecution of this application or made during the prosecution of any patent or other related patents/applications, and advises the Examiner that any such previous disclaimers and the cited references that they were made to avoid may need to be revisited.
After entry of this amendment, the pending claims are: claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-17, and 19-20.
REMARKS CONCERNING REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
I.    REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-20 UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101 BECAUSE THE CLAIMED
INVENTION IS DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
As noted above, the Examiner agrees that the amended claim 1 has overcome the 101 rejection by integrating the additional claim features into a practical application that are sufficient to overcome the judicial exception with significantly more features.
In view of the above, the Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1- 20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 should be withdrawn.
REMARKS CONCERNING REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103
II.   REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3 AND 7-20 UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE
OVER LIAN
III.  REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4-6 UNDER 35 U.S.C.103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER
LIAN, IN VIEW OF "RAINBOW SIX WIKI MONTANGE"
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that:
in response to the detected behavior:
displaying a movement of the controlled virtual object corresponding to the detected behavior in the virtual scene; determining a corresponding behavior type of the controlled virtual object;
determining, based on the behavior type of the controlled virtual object, a motion parameter corresponding to the behavior
type, the motion parameter indicating a movement path of the
virtual shelter prop in the virtual scene;
displaying a movement of the virtual shelter prop along the movement path in the virtual scene according to the motion parameter and the movement of the controlled virtual object in
the virtual scene; and
displaying, at the end of the movement of the virtual shelter prop, the virtual shelter prop at a second position of the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene, the virtual shelter
prop being used for sheltering the second position of the
controlled virtual object and the second position of the
controlled virtual object being different from the first position
of the controlled virtual object.
Emphasis Added.
As highlighted above, the movement of the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene causes the movement of the virtual shelter prop from a first position to a second
position along the movement path in the virtual scene according to the motion parameter and the movement of the controlled virtual object in the virtual scene, the second position of the controlled virtual object being different from the first position of the controlled virtual object. See, e.g., FIGS. 7 and 8 of the present application reproduced below. Note that the virtual shelter prop moves from the position 702 in FIG. 7 to the second position 802 in FIG.
8 when the controlled virtual object is in a shooting position.
In contrast, Lian requires that "[a]nd 204, when the moving operation of the virtual object is received, controlling the bunker prop to move in the same direction as the virtual object." As depicted in FIG. 11 of Lian (reproduced below), the iron plate 1102 is always
located in front of the virtual object 1101 and moves in the same direction as the virtual object 1101.
Finally, the Examiner agrees that the amended claim 1 has overcome the current rejection based on Lian. Claims 9 and 17 have been amended in a substantially similar manner as claim 1.
In view of the above, the Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
By responding in the foregoing remarks only to particular positions asserted by the examiner, the Applicant does not necessarily acquiesce in other positions that have not been explicitly addressed. In addition, the Applicant's arguments for the patentability of a claim should not be understood as implying that no other reasons for the patentability of that claim exist.
In light of the above amendments and remarks, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider this application with a view towards allowance. The Examiner is invited to call the undersigned attorney at (650) 843-7558, if a telephone call could help resolve any remaining items.
Respectfully submitted,

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 10, 12 to 17, 19, and 20 (independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, and their dependent claims) are allowed.
The IDSs of 12-04-2022 and 05-24-2023 have been initialed as requested.  This communication is in response to a printer rush request from the Office of Publications.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is Lian (Chinese patent publication CN 110721469 A, cited on the IDS, see NF 10-01-2024, pages 13 to 15).  Lian discloses a method for shielding a virtual object in a virtual environment (Paras. 44 to 71, Figs. 1 & 2): a first user uses a first terminal to control a first virtual object in a virtual environment to perform activity, the activity comprising: crawling, using a virtual prop to harm other virtual objects, etc.; the user controls the virtual object to take a cover prop out of a backpack for equipping the cover prop; the cover prop shields the virtual object in a shielding direction when the cover prop is equipped; when the user controls the virtual object to attack a hostile virtual object, the cover prop has a defensive function and can help the virtual object to defend against the attack of the hostile virtual object (equivalent to in response to an equipment operation on a virtual cover prop, displaying the virtual cover prop at a first position of a controlled virtual object in a virtual scene, the virtual cover prop being used for shielding the controlled virtual object); when a movement operation on the virtual object is received, the cover prop and the virtual object are controlled to move in a same direction (equivalent to displaying that the virtual cover prop moves with the controlled virtual object).  Lian does not suggest the motion of the virtual shelter prop as claimed on conjunction with the other claim limitations (see the eighth and ninth clauses of Claim 1).
In the presently claimed invention, a controlled virtual object (such as a protagonist in a first-person shooter game) is sheltered by equipping the controlled virtual object with a movable virtual shelter prop (such as a riot shield or a ballistic shield used by soldiers or SWAT officers), so as to avoid the controlled virtual object being directly exposed in a virtual scene and being attacked by other virtual objects.  Position adjustment through various movement operation instructions can be avoided, thereby avoiding generating redundant data processing procedures and reducing waste of resources.  The virtual shelter prop is capable of moving with the controlled virtual object.  When the controlled virtual object runs, jumps, etc., the virtual shelter prop may also play a role in defending against an attack, thereby effectively improving the security of the controlled virtual object in competitive battles and improving the user experience.  The examiner respects that the applicants may have different reasons for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US5970479A: Claims:
I claim: 1. A computer-based data processing system to enable the formulation of customized multi-party risk management contracts having a future time of maturity, the system comprising:at least one stakeholder input means by which ordering stakeholders can input contract data representing at least one offered contract in at least one predetermined phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a range of future outcomes, and said contract data specifying entitlements due at maturity for said range of future outcomes, and a consideration due to a counter-party stakeholder; at least one counter-party stakeholder input means by which at least one counter-party stakeholder can input registering data, independent of said stakeholder entering said contract data, as to a likelihood of each outcome in said range of future outcomes for one or more of said predetermined phenomena; a data storage means linked with each said stakeholder input means and linked with each said counter-party stakeholder input means to store said contract data and said registering data; and data processing means, linked with the data storage means, for pricing and matching contracts from said contract data and said registering data, said pricing including calculating a counter-consideration derived from said likelihoods and said entitlements, and said matching including comparing said consideration and said counter-consideration to match an offered contract with at least one of said counter-party stakeholders. 2. The system as in claim 1, further comprising at least one other-stakeholder input means linked with the data storage means, and by which phenomena and associated range of outcomes can be input to be stored in the data storage means to be ones of said predetermined phenomena and said range of future outcomes therefor. 3. The system as in claim 2, wherein each other-stakeholder input means is configured so that each said predetermined phenomenon and associated range of future outcomes further include a predetermined time of maturity, and said contract data and said registering data are for the time of maturity. 4. The system as in claim 2 or claim 3, wherein said registering data for each outcome represents a probability of that outcome eventuating at the time of maturity, and said counter-consideration is calculated by elemental multiplication of entitlements and the respective likelihood, all summed over the range, and adjusted at least to calculate the present day value thereof. 5. The system as in claim 4, wherein the said other-stakeholder input means is configured to receive updating data as to a present day outcome of each of the phenomena, in turn to be passed to the data storage means for recordal. 6. The system as in claim 5, wherein, on maturity of the contract, the data processing means retrieves the updated present day outcome of the respective phenomenon from the data storage means, determines an entitlement due for that outcome, and passes the entitlement to output means of the data processing system for exchange of the entitlement between the matched stakeholders. 7. The system as in claim 6, wherein said output means is linked with data communications means to remote locations where stakeholder accounts reside, and the data processing means causes transaction of the entitlement between respective stakeholder accounts. 8. The system as in claim 4, wherein said other-stakeholder input means receives qualification data which places qualification on which of the counter-party registering data can be used to price and/or match an offered contract, the said qualification data being stored in the data storage means. 9. The system as in claim 8, wherein said qualification data is input to the input means by parties including stakeholder guarantors, and financial or institutional regulators. 10. The system as in claim 4, wherein the data processing means is configured so that a match of an offered contract is made on the basis only of a counter-consideration being less than or equal to the said consideration. 11. The system as in claim 10, wherein the data processing means is configured so that a match of an offered contract is made with a preferred one of a counter-consideration being less than or equal to the said consideration. 12. The system as in claim 4, further comprising a credit record and a debit record for each stakeholder held with an exchange Institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of entitlements; and the data storage means of the data processing apparatus being configured to include a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder, the data processing means being configured to obtain a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record, and for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, adjusting the respective shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only those transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order, and the data processing means further being configured to, at the end-of-day, instruct ones of the exchange institutions to exchange transacted credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective stakeholders in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits be Irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions. 13. The system as in claim 1, wherein, on a match of an offered contract, the data processing means passes the matched contract to the data storage means for recordal. 14. The system as in claim 13, wherein the output means generates confirmatory documentation for each stakeholder to a matched contract. 15. The computer-based data processing system of claim 1, further includes a second counter party stakeholder input means by which a second counter-party stakeholder can input registering data. 16. A system to enable the formulation of customized multi-party risk management contracts, the system comprising:a plurality of main data processing devices interconnected by at least one data communications link, each said data processing device running an operating system and applications software; one or more data storage devices to which each data processing device has access; a plurality of data input/output channels providing connection to a plurality of stakeholder locations, each said location having data processing means, and the system being programmed for:regulating input of data, specifying a risk phenomenon, a range of outcomes for the phenomenon, and a time of maturity; stakeholders inputting to a said data storage device by ones of the stakeholder data processing locations contract data for an offered contract, specifying an entitlement due at maturity for each outcome in the range of outcomes for a one of the predetermined phenomena, and an amount payable to a seller; counter-party stakeholders inputting to a data storage device by ones of the stakeholder data processing locations registering data, independent of contract data entered by stakeholders, as to a likelihood of occurrence of each outcome in the range of outcomes for at least one of the predetermined phenomena; pricing and matching a contract by the main data processing devices for at least one of the offered contracts from the seller registered data by: for an offered contract, selecting the registering data for the respective phenomenon and, in response to entitlements specified for each outcome in the range of outcomes for the phenomenon, calculating a counter-consideration, and, by comparison of the calculated counter-consideration with the consideration, matching an offered contract with at least one counter-party stakeholder. 17. The system as in claim 16, further comprising output means for each distributed data processing location whereby, on a match of a contract, confirmation is output in the form of data or documentation to respective output means for the matched stakeholders. 18. A method to enable the formulation of customized multi-party risk management contracts having a future time of maturity, the method comprising the steps of:(a) inputting into data processing apparatus, by at least one ordering stakeholder input means thereof, contract data representing at least one offered contract in at least one predetermined phenomenon having a range of future outcomes, and said contract data specifying entitlements due at maturity for the range of future outcomes, and consideration due to a counter-party stakeholder; (b) inputting into said data processing apparatus, by at least one counter-party stakeholder input means thereof, counter-party registering data, independent of at least one ordering stakeholder entering contract data, as to a likelihood of each outcome in said range of future outcomes for one or more of said predetermined phenomena; (c) storing, in a data storage means of said data processing apparatus linked with each said stakeholder input means and linked with each said counter-party stakeholder input means, said contract data and said registering data; and (d) pricing and matching at least one of the offered contracts by data processing means of the data processing apparatus linked with said data storage means, said pricing and matching comprising the steps, for each offered contract, of:(i) calculating a counter-consideration derived from said likelihoods and said entitlements; (ii) comparing said consideration and said counter-consideration; and (iii) matching a contract on the basis of said comparison. 19. The method as in claim 18, comprising the further step, before step (a), of:(aa) inputting into said data processing apparatus, by at least one other other-stakeholder Input means thereof, predetermining data of a said phenomenon and an associated range of outcomes. 20. The method as in claim 19, wherein the step (at) further comprises inputting a predetermined time of maturity for each predetermined phenomenon and associated range of outcomes. 21. The method as in claim 20, wherein the registering data for each outcome represents a likelihood of that outcome eventuating at the time of maturity, and the step (d)(i) is performed bymultiplying elemental entitlements for each outcome with the respective likelihood; summing the products for the range of outcomes; and adjusting the sum at least to calculate a present day value thereof to give the counter-party consideration. 22. The method as in claim 21, comprising the further steps, following step (d), of:(h) inputting, by the other-stakeholder input means, qualification data on which of the counter-party registering data can be used to price an offered contract. 23. The method as in claim 21, wherein the step (d)(iii) is performed by considering those counter-considerations being only less than or equal to said consideration. 24. The method as in claim 23, wherein the step (d)(iv) is performed by matching a preferred one of the counter-considerations being less than or equal to the said consideration. 25. The method as in claim 19, comprising the further step following step (d) of:(e) inputting, by the other-stakeholder input means, data representing a present day outcome of each phenomenon. 26. The method as in claim 25, comprising the further steps, following step (e) of, at the time of maturity:(f) calculating the entitlement for the updated present day outcome; and (g) exchanging the entitlement between matched stakeholders. 27. The method as in claim 18 or claim 19 comprising the further step, following step (d), and before the time of maturity, of:(m) a party to a matched contract offering a stake in the contract to other parties in exchange for a consideration, and, on acceptance of the stake and exchange of the consideration by another party, that other party becoming a stakeholder to the contract. 28. The method as in claim 18, wherein each stakeholder holds a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit record and debit record for exchange of entitlements, the method comprising the further steps, following step (d), of:(i) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder to be held independently by the data processing apparatus from the exchange institutions; (j) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record; (k) for every translation resulting In an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only those transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and (l) at the end-of-day, the data processing apparatus instructing ones of the exchange institutions to exchange transacted credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective stakeholders in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions. 29. The method as in claim 28, wherein the end-of-day instructions represent credits and debits netted throughout the day for each stakeholder in respect of all the transactions of that day. 30. The method as in claim 18, comprising the further step following step (d) of:(n) passing matched contracts to the data storage means for recordal. 31. The method as in claim 30, comprising the further step following step (n) of:(o) generating confirmatory documentation for each stakeholder for each matched contract. 32. A method of making a computer system, the method comprising the steps of:(a) interconnecting at least one stakeholder data input means and at least one counter-stakeholder data input means to data storage means; (b) interconnecting the data storage means with data processing means; (c) interconnecting the data processing means with output means; and (d) programming the data processing means to:(i) accept stakeholder input data of contract data representing at least one offered contract, each offered contract specifying a predetermined phenomenon, each phenomenon having a range of future outcomes, and each said contract data having a future time of maturity, an entitlement due for each outcome in said range of outcomes, and a consideration payable to a counter-party stakeholder; (ii) accept counter-stakeholder registering data, independent of said stakeholder input data being accepted, as to a likelihood of each outcome in said range of future outcomes for each one or more of said phenomena; (iii) process the contract data and the registering data to price and match a contract, said pricing including: selecting the registering data corresponding to the time of maturity for each predetermined phenomenon, and calculating a counter-consideration derived from said entitlements and said likelihoods; and said matching including comparing said consideration and said counter-consideration to match an offered contract with at least one of said counter-party stakeholders; and (iv) output confirmatory data or documentation for each matched contract. 33. A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions; (b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record; (c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party's shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and (d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing ones of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions. 34. The method as in claim 33, wherein the end-of-day instructions represent credits and debits netted throughout the day for each party in respect of all the transactions of that day. 35. A data processing system to enable the formulation of customized multi-party risk management contracts, the system comprising:at least one stakeholder input means by which ordering stakeholders can input contract data representing at least one offered contract in at least one predetermined phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a future outcome at a time of maturity, and said contract data specifying an entitlement due at maturity for each outcome in a range of future outcomes; at least one counter-party stakeholder input means by which at least one counter-party stakeholder can input registering data, independent of said stakeholders inputting said contract data, for one or more of said predetermined phenomena; a data storage means linked with each said stakeholder input means and linked with each said counter-party stakeholder input means to store said contract data and said registering data; and data processing means, linked with the data storage means, for pricing and matching contracts from said contract data and said registering data, said pricing including calculating counter-considerations derived from said registering data relating to the phenomenon of the contract data, and said matching including comparing said counter-considerations to match an offered contract with at least one of said counter-party stakeholders. 36. A data processing system to enable the formulation of customized potential multi-party risk management contracts, the system comprising:at least one stakeholder input means by which ordering stakeholders can input contract data representing at least one offered contract in at least one predetermined phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a future outcome at a time of maturity, and said contract data specifying an entitlement due at maturity for each outcome in a range of future outcomes; at least one counter-party stakeholder input means by which at least one counter-party stakeholder can input registering data, independent of said stakeholders inputting said contract data, for one or more of said predetermined phenomena; a data storage means linked with each said stakeholder input means and linked with each s aid counter-party stakeholder input means to store said contract data and said registering data; and data processing means, linked with the data storage means, for pricing contracts from said contract data and said registering data, said pricing including calculating counter-considerations derived from said registering data relating to the phenomenon of the contract data. 37. A data-processing system to enable the formulation of customized multi-party risk management contracts, the system comprising:at least one stakeholder input means by which ordering stakeholders can input contract data representing at least one offered contract in at least one predetermined phenomenon, each said phenomenon having a future outcome at a time of maturity, and said contract data specifying an entitlement due at maturity for each outcome in a range of future outcomes; at least one counte
[Truncated to input limit]