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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-11 under 35 USC 101 (see Remarks, pg. 6). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims refer to “an electronic video game being executed” and “the target player operating the player character is the electronic video game” and “a first comparison display control for performing comparison display of the each stat item between the result of the individual evaluation and a result of the overall evaluation, in relation to the target player; and a second comparison display control for performing comparison display between a result of the individual evaluation of the each stat item of a first player and a result of the individual evaluation of the each stat item of a second player” which are not methods of organizing human activity but is quite clear that they describe an electronic video game, not the actions of human beings in the “real world.”, there is no mathematical relationship being claimed, and would be impossible to perform in the human mind, or with pencil and paper under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 6). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An electronic video game is a social activity and/or interaction between people which is analogous to concepts the courts have indicated is a certain method of organizing human activity. Statistics are generally understood to be a branch of mathematics that include mathematical relationships which are indicating of a grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the claims are found to recite mental processes because they recite an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinions. It follows that the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas because they recite steps and/or instructions for managing a play of an electronic video game by displaying the evaluation of the performance of a first player to a second player in the electronic video game. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative asserts that claims 1 and 11 integrate any allege abstract idea into a practical application. For instance, the Applicant’s representative asserts that “the stats are conventionally displayed only to show an evaluation result of the gameplay of the player”. As argued by the Applicant’s representative, the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 11 solve this problem by providing “a first comparison display control for performing…in relation to the target player” and “a second comparison display control for performing comparison display between a result of the individual evaluation of the each stat item of a first player and … a second player” which define a solution to the identified problem by displaying a comparison of the individual player evaluation with respect to an overall evaluation of other players so that the player can understand his/her stat items as compared to a community of other players, rather than only understanding his/her stat items in isolation (see Remarks, pg. 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not found to recite a technical solution to a technical problem that would integrate the claim into a practical application because they recite mere instructions to apply an exception. In particular, the claim limitations recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (e.g., a first comparison display control for performing comparison display; a second comparison display control for performing comparison display) but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. For instance, the claims are found to recite a desired outcome (e.g., a first comparison display and a second comparison display) by displaying a comparison display between a result of the individual evaluation of the each stat item of a first player to a second player but fails to recite details of how the purported solution such as “a first comparison display…in relation to the target player” and “a second comparison display control between a result of the individual evaluation of each state item of a first player…a second player” is accomplished. As is consistent, with decisions by the Federal Circuit, collecting information, analyzing information and displaying the results of the collected and analyzed information does not amount to integration to a practical application but mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). 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 1-11 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, recite the limitations:
A computer system comprising: at least one processor or circuit programmed to perform:
a game management function of providing data required to play an electronic video game to a terminal device, -certain method of organizing human activity
an individual evaluation of gameplay of a target player who has played the electronic video game for each stat item of a plurality of stat items, based on any one of motion content and a motion result of a player character during execution of the electronic video game, the target player operating the player character in the electronic video game via the terminal device, the plurality of stat items representing various characteristics of the gameplay of the target player; - certain method of organizing human activity/mathematical relationship/mental process/pre-solution activity
an overall evaluation of the each stat item based on a result of the individual evaluation of the each stat item of each player who has played the electronic video game with the player character or another play character;
a first comparison display control for performing comparison display of the each stat item between the result of the individual evaluation and a result of the overall evaluation in relation to the target player, -certain method of organizing human activity/post-solution activity/mental process/mathematical relationship; and
a second comparison display control for performing comparison display between a result of the individual evaluation of the each stat item of a first player and a result of the individual evaluation of the each stat item of a second player, -certain method of organizing human activity/mental process/mathematical relationship;
wherein the individual evaluation is performed by comparing each stat item of the target player to a threshold value; -certain method of organizing human activity/mental process/mathematical relationship; and
wherein the first comparison display control associated each of the various characteristics with a corresponding one of the stat items.
The underlined portions of the claim above are viewed as either directed to a grouping of abstract idea and/or as noted pre/post solution activity under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements in the claim are a computer comprising “at least one processor/circuit programmed”, “via the terminal device”, “a first comparison display control” and “wherein the first comparison display control associated each of the various characteristics with a corresponding one of the stat items” which is analogous to applying a computer as a tool, performing insignificant extra solution activity; and/or providing a technological environment to perform the abstract idea which is not sufficient to integrate the claim into practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously mentioned the only additional elements are part of a general purpose computer which the Supreme Court in Alice determined would not amount transform the abstract idea into patent eligibility under Step 2B.
With respect to independent Claims 10-11, the claims are not exactly the same as claim 1 but they are analogous and are rejected under similar reasoning above.
With respect to dependent claims 2-4 and 6-9, all of the dependent claims have been analyzed, however they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims and are found to add further abstract ideas, limitations that invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a), MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-11 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