Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 13/252,056

System and Method of Providing a Virtual Environment to Users with Static Avatars and Chat Bubbles

Final Rejection §101§112
Filed
Oct 03, 2011
Examiner
DUFFY, DAVID W
Art Unit
3700
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Kamagames Entertainment Group Limited
OA Round
15 (Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
16-17
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
255 granted / 480 resolved
-16.9% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
490
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§103
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 480 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 53-62 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. Claims 53-62 recite the limitation “the medium of claim 52” or similar. Parent claim 52 does not recite a medium. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that “the medium” should have been “the method”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 41-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 41 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is eligible at step 1. At step 2a, prong one, the following limitations are abstract: present a virtual environment, wherein the virtual environment comprises: an area in which activity by the three or more users in the virtual environment are represented; and three or more static inanimate avatars each disposed adjacent a perimeter of the area at fixed locations, each static inanimate avatar representing a different one of three or more users engaging in activity with different respective ones of the three or more client computing devices, wherein the virtual environment simulates a physical layout, expresses ongoing real-time interactions among the three or more users, and is constrained by simulated physics that govern interactions between virtual objects and the virtual environment, at least some of the virtual objects moving within the simulated physical layout responsive to inputs from one or more of the three or more users; and at least some of the virtual objects are determined with a pseudo-random number generator;present to a third user among the three or more users an updated view of the virtual environment in which a first notification and a second notification are displayed, wherein:the first notification is displayed in the updated view of the virtual environment concurrently with the second notification; while the first notification is displayed concurrently with the second notification, the updated view of the virtual environment does not indicate whether the first notification was received before or after the second notification; and at least part of the first notification is displayed in the updated view of the virtual environment superimposed on at least part of the area and the at least part of the area is visible through the first notification; the first notification is visually associated with a first static, inanimate avatar, among the three or more static, inanimate avatars, of the first user in the updated view of the virtual environment; and the second notification is visually associated with a second static, inanimate avatar, among the three or more static, inanimate avatars, of the second user in the updated view of the virtual environment; and the third client computing device to stop displaying the first notification after a duration of time has passed and continue to display the second notification after the duration of time has passed, wherein: the second client computing device displays the first notification for a different amount of time than the third client computing device. The above limitations are abstract because they concern mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically interactions between users of a game as set forth in the Patent Board decision of 2022/04/28. The following are additional elements:A tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors effectuate operations comprising: instructing, via a network, with one or more processors of a server, three or more client computing devices to each instructing, via the network, with one or more processors, a third client computing device among the three or more client computing devices to causing, with one or more processors, The above limitations do not contribute significantly more as they are merely general-purpose computers, recited at a high level of generality used to apply the abstract idea. In re-evaluating the claim at step 2b, the claim as a whole does not meet the requirements of §101 as the claim does not recite any additional elements beyond general computers used to apply the abstract idea. Claims 42-46 further define the capabilities of the general-purpose computer in general limitations that the computer will do the processing for various game functions. These additional limitations fail to amount to significantly more because they do not implement the abstract idea and merely elaborate on the apply it step of the computer used to implement the abstract idea. Claims 47-48 further define the context of the abstract idea and are therefore also abstract. Claims 49-50 further define the abstract process by addition of a determination about what information to display and provide the additional, extra-solution limitation of displaying the determined information. These limitations fail to amount to significantly more as the first is not an additional element and the second merely applies the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer to display the outcome of the abstract determination. Claim 51 merely provides field of use or technological environment information on how the “apply it” step will be shown on the general-purpose computer. Claim 52 is directed to the same abstract method carried out in claim 41 and is rejected under the same rationale. Claims 53-62 repeat the limitations of claims 42-51 and are rejected under the same rationale. Claim 63 is directed to a combination of the claim elements of 52-57 and is rejected under the same rationale. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2024/11/13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First applicant argues that the method provides resource optimization. Examiner disagrees. The system as recited merely says the character images are static and the text is displayed. A high fidelity static image may use more resources than a low fidelity moving image. Just because the characters don’t move doesn’t mean that resources are more efficiently used. Showing a message on the screen also doesn’t inherently remove a chat log. Whether the messages are shown over the characters or in a field to the side, the message data is still retained in order to show it. The data storage “improvement” is incidental and depends entirely on the content of the messages sent by users. If users send long messages more storage will be consumed than if they send short ones. There is nothing about the claimed invention that reduces the data usage just by showing the messages in a different location on the screen. Applicant argues that the claimed invention amounts to a concrete, practical application. For the reasons set forth above and previously by the Patent Board, examiner disagrees. The majority of applicant’s argument seems to be a bare bones system uses less resources than a more complex system. While this may superficially be true in some scenarios, that does not make it a “technological” improvement to just do less. A calculator is not an improvement over a computer because it does less with less. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The newly cited references on the attached PTO-892 concern other chat message management systems. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID DUFFY whose telephone number is (571)272-1574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700 +/- 15. 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at (571) 270-1935. 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. /DAVID DUFFY/Quality Assurance Specialist, TC 3700
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2011
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2014
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
May 02, 2014
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 02, 2014
Applicant Interview
Jun 16, 2014
Response Filed
Jul 29, 2014
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jan 02, 2015
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2015
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2015
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2015
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2015
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jul 27, 2015
Response Filed
Sep 02, 2015
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jan 08, 2016
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 12, 2016
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 19, 2016
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 21, 2016
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jun 29, 2016
Response Filed
Jul 12, 2016
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jan 17, 2017
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 24, 2017
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2017
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Aug 02, 2017
Response Filed
Sep 11, 2017
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Dec 14, 2017
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 18, 2017
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 14, 2018
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 16, 2018
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 26, 2018
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Nov 01, 2018
Response Filed
Jan 03, 2019
Final Rejection — §101, §112
May 07, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 08, 2019
Notice of Allowance
Nov 08, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 21, 2019
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 17, 2020
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jul 21, 2020
Notice of Allowance
Oct 21, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 02, 2020
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 26, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 29, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 30, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 30, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 26, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 28, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 11, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jul 11, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 17, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2023
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Aug 03, 2023
Notice of Allowance
Feb 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 26, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 08, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Nov 13, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 10614673
MULTI-FUNCTIONAL PLAYING CARD RANDOMIZATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2020
Patent 10589175
Systems and Methods for Customized Camera Views in Virtualized Environments
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2020
Patent 10565827
CARD GAME WITH RAKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 18, 2020
Patent 10522003
METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING A WAGER FOR A GAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 31, 2019
Patent 10510205
GAMING MACHINE, CONTROL METHOD FOR MACHINE, AND PROGRAM FOR GAMING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 17, 2019
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

16-17
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+23.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 480 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month