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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending. Claims 1 and 7-8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejection of claims 1 and 3-13 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more (see Remarks, pg. 10-14). The Applicant’s representative asserts that the amendments of the claims address the rejection to clarify that the spectator information is acquired at intervals of unit time, thus allowing the system “to continually adapt through multiple interactions over time the displayed content based on changing spectator attributes and makeup, etc.” Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that these amendments recite “how the technical solution is accomplished (multiple operations performed for each interval of unit time, over multiple intervals) rather than just an intended result of a technical solution and recites a practical application of any such abstract idea (see Remarks, pg. 10-12). Moreover, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims recite an improvement in the field of computer games because these systems were unable to change it operation according to the audience (see Remarks, pg. 13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment to acquire spectator information at “intervals of unit time” is not a technical solution to a technical problem but to the abstract idea itself (e.g., a commercial and legal interaction including agreements in the form of advertisements). Furthermore, clarification on how data (e.g., such as spectator information) is received amounts to mere data gathering and/or insignificant extra solution activity and is not found to further describe how a technical solution to a technical problem was achieved. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the second argument, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claim integrate the claim into a practical application by accounting for spectator information which is an improvement over conventional methods of providing content of advertisements in computer video games (see Remarks, pg. 13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Providing advertisements in computer games recites a desired result in a technological environment and/or field of use that does not define how the a technical solution to a technical problem was overcome and/or how the inventor achieved to solve the technical solution to a technical problem. Furthermore, dynamic advertisements to spectators recites a commercial and legal interaction including advertisements which as indicated by the courts is directed to the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
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 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract idea such as:
1. (currently amended): A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having instructions stored therein that cause at least one processor of a game apparatus to:
communicate with a distribution system configured to distribute videos to a plurality of terminal apparatuses;
progress a computer game; -cmoha;
generate, based on the progress of the computer game, video information that is used to play a video of the computer game indicating a state of a virtual space of the computer game; -cmoha
supply a distribution video based on the video information to the distribution system;
acquire, from an advertisement management server, a table including advertisement information for a plurality of advertisements, the advertisement information including, for each advertisement, content including an image file or a video file, attribute classifications of a target audience, and a display position in the virtual space;
store, in a memory, the table including the advertisement information;
acquire, in intervals of unit time, spectator information from the distribution system, the acquired spectator information relating to at least one spectator apparatus that is included in the plurality of terminal apparatuses and that is receiving the distribution video from the distribution system in real time, the spectator information including user attribution information indicating an attribute of a user of each of the at least one spectator apparatus during the unit time, and the user being a spectator of the computer game,
wherein in response to the spectator information being acquired, for each interval of the unit time:
identify an attribute that is most common among the spectator information during the unit time, -cmoha and/or mental process; and
determine, from the table, a content and an associated display position in the virtual space that have an attribute classification corresponding to the attribute that is most common among the spectator information during the unit time, -cmoha and/or mental process; and
update, based on the attribute that is most common among the spectator information during the unit time, the video information that is used to play the computer game to indicate the content in the associated display position of the virtual space of the computer game; - cmoha; and
supply, during the unit time, a distribution video based on the updated video information to the distribution system.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are found to be directed to a certain method of organizing human activity such as being directed to steps and/or instructions for managing a computer game video and/or a commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II). Moreover, at least one limitation, has been found to recite a mental process because it recites an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that may be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a tool (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III). For at least this reason, the claims are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “communicate with a distribution system configured to distribute videos to a plurality of terminal apparatuses;” “supply a distribution video based on the video information to the distribution system;” “acquire, from an advertisement management server, a table including advertisement information for a plurality of advertisements, the advertisement information including, for each advertisement, content including an image file or a video file, attribute classifications of a target audience, and a display position in the virtual space;” “store, in a memory, the table including the advertisement information”, “acquire, in intervals of unit time, spectator information from the distribution system, the acquired spectator information relating to at least one spectator apparatus that is included in the plurality of terminal apparatuses and that is receiving the distribution video from the distribution system in real time, the spectator information including user attribution information indicating an attribute of a user of each of the at least one spectator apparatus during the unit time, and the user being a spectator of the computer game,” and “supply, during the unit time, a distribution video based on the updated video information to the distribution system.” amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity of the abstract idea, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Moreover, the additional limitation such as “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having instructions stored therein that cause at least one processor of a game apparatus to:” amounts to mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as “at least one process of a game apparatus”, “a distribution system”, “a plurality of terminal apparatus”, and “at least one spectator apparatus” and “a memory” when view as individually components and/or as a collection of elements do amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). The claims are similar to Alice v. CLS and Chewy Inc v. IBM Corp (Fed Cir. 2024), in which the additional elements implement an abstract idea by invoking a computer as a tool and/or provide a technological environment and/or a field of use to perform the abstract idea. For instance, a review of the Specification indicates the recited plurality of terminal apparatus, game apparatus, spectator apparatus includes commercial use game devices installed in a store or an amusement facility, a mobile device, and a stationary information device such as a personal computer which are all highly-generalized and commercially available components (see Chiba – US 2022/0233960, 0039, 0042, 0084, wherein the processor is a CPU, 0110). Moreover, the Specification describes the distribution system as a distribution server which indicates the general nature of the system designated by its field of use. It follows that the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 7-8, recites substantially the same subject matter independent Claim 1 as analyzed above, but are directed to the embodiments of a computer-implemented method and a game system, respectively. The analysis of the subject matter address above is incorporated herein. It follows that independent Claims 7-8 are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as independent Claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 3-6, and 9-13, each of the limitations have been analyzed and were found to recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas, steps/instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform extra solution activity of the abstract idea and./or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1 and 3-13 are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715