DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 6-11 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 have been amended and claim 5 has been canceled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments legal remarks under 35 USC 112(f), the Applicant’s statements are understood as the recited “means for” as being directed to a general purpose computer system that invokes a “rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed”. The Examiner construes that the recited limitations of the claim, as an admission by the Applicant’s representative, that the currently claimed subject matter recites subject matter known to one of ordinary skill and does not require a disclosure of any algorithm and/or special programming but only recites simple functions similar to receiving, storing, and processing data that does not require a disclosure of an algorithm (see Remarks, pg. 6-7). It follows that the recited claimed computer system is directed to a highly-generalized general purpose computing system performing simple functions.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-11 under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because i) they are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 9-10); ii) integrate any abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 10), and iii) recite unconventional steps to a useful application that analyzes the player’s gameplay with respect to a community of other players and displaying the analysis under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental process because it is quite clear that they describe an electronic video game, no mathematical relationship being claimed, and impossible to perform the features in the human mind, or with pencil and paper (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative, the claims describe “an electronic video game” which is analogous to managing a social activity including rules and/or instructions (e.g., playing an electronic video game – including instructions for evaluating a first player and a second player in the game) that the courts have indicated is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
Additionally, the claims are found to recite a series of rules and/or instructions for managing the electronic video game for “evaluating” a plurality of stat items by “comparing” overall and individual stat between a first player and second player that have been found. “Stats”, which is understood as being short for “statistics”, are the “collection, organization, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data, which are found to be a branch of mathematics which indicate that the claims recite limitations directed to mathematical relationships (e.g., mathematical relationships between a first player and second player). As acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative, the claims and Specification do not recite any particular algorithm associated with these mathematical concepts because the recited stats are directed to simple functions that do not require disclosure (see Remarks, pg. 7). As such, the Examiner finds that the recited stats involve simple calculations that are known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. It follows that the “evaluating” the stats and “comparing” of the stats may be construed as a mathematical relationship (e.g., comparing stats to a threshold”) and/or an “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” that is capable of being performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a general purpose computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reason, the Applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite any mathematical relationships and/or mental processes is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained.
With respect to Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims integrate the claim into a practical application because they provide a “comparison display of each stat item between the result of the individual evaluations and a result of the overall evaluation, in relation to the target player” and “a second comparison display control means 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 each stat item of a second player” (see Remarks, pg. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite steps for collecting information (e.g., providing data required to play an electronic video game), analyzing information (e.g., evaluating gameplay of target player; evaluating each stat item based on a result of the individual evaluation of the each stat item; an overall evaluation means for evaluating the each stat item on a result of the individual evaluation; compare each stat item) and displaying information (e.g., a first comparison display comparing each stat item; second comparison display comparison display between a result of the individual evaluation of the first and second player). As previously indicated by the courts, collecting, analyzing, and displaying information, even when limited to particular types of data (e.g., stats of a first player and second player in an electronic game) have been found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. Similarly, the additional elements to display the result of the instructions for collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is not found to integrate the claim into a practical application but to merely invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, 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 analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below.
With respect to Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims amount to significant more because they confine the claim to a particular useful application (i.e., analyzing the player’s gameplay with respect to a community of other players and displaying the analysis). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated above, collecting, analyzing, and displaying information even when limited to particular data (i.e. – player’s gameplay with respect to a community of other players and displaying the result) recite steps and/or instructions directed to the abstract idea. Moreover, the additional elements are not found to confine the claim to a particular useful application but to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., collecting information, displaying a result), and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (e.g., an electronic video game implemented using computing system). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis has been maintained below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-4 and 6-11 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:
a game management means for providing data required to play an electronic video game to a terminal device, -certain method of organizing human activity
an individual evaluation means for evaluating 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 means for evaluating 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 means 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 means 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 means compares 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 system comprising “via the terminal device” “a first comparison display control means for” and “wherein the first comparison display control means for 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights