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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/2/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1 and 11-14 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite a technological improvement of asynchronous, multiplayer video games that leverage the type of input device used by users to carry out the asynchronous processing (see Remarks, pg. 11-12). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims, such as independent Claim 1, integrates any otherwise judicially excepted subject matter into a practical application because it reflects an improvement in “computer and gaming systems and technology”. For instance, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claimed system address a technical problem specific to asynchronous multiplayer gaming systems that support different types of input devices: namely, different input device types (e.g., touch versus button) that provide performance advantages for certain gameplay task that allow for processing of the game between a first and second user that utilize different types of input devices to provide operation inputs. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations recite steps and/or instructions for processing a game rule association with operation inputs for a first and second user that are analogous to managing an asynchronous multiplayer game which is directed to the abstract idea. The claims are not found to recite a technical solution to a technical problem as providing performance advantages to the users that utilize different types of input devices that result in “rendered visualizations corresponding to the operations inputs of the second user and the reproduced gameplay actions of the first user” are directed to rules and/or instructions of the asynchronous game as opposed to an improvement to computer technology and/or to another field of technology. The claims recite steps of a desired result to process a game between users of the multiplayer asynchronous game as opposed to how the technological improvement and/or improvement to the functioning of the computer and/or system solves the technical problem in the gaming field. For instance, as acknowledged by the Applicant’s representative the claims are directed to an instance of the game where “a player can play a game by battling a ghost in such a situation the type of input device that is used by the player is recorded and used to determine what gameplay data from another user to select” that “asynchronous gameplay recites a process to manage the asynchronous multiplayer game. The Specification fails to provide sufficient details as to how the information processing system is improved or to another technological field is improved by the a multiplayer asynchronous game that determines what type of input device is used by users to carry out the asynchronous game process. However, managing the asynchronous game including rules and/or instructions of the asynchronous game amount to the abstract idea itself in which the additional limitations amount to at least one of: invoking a computer as a tool, 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 1-14 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 ideas such as:
An information processing system comprising:
a touch input device configured to receive touch input from a second user;
at least one button input device configured to be operated by the second user;
one or more hardware processors configured to perform operations comprising:
detecting an input device configuration indicating which type of input device from among at least the touch input device and the at least one button input device is used by the second user for asynchronous game play processing;
transmitting, to a server, a play data request that is based on the detected server to select play data of a first user based on 1) first input device data that indicates the type of input device used for a past gameplay performance of the first user, and 2) the input device configuration to be used for one or more gameplay actions during asynchronous game play processing for the second user;
in response to the play data request, receiving the play data of the first user that was selected, the play data of the first user including:
a) gameplay data indicating gameplay actions performed during a past gameplay performance by the first user, and
b) input device data that indicates the type of input device, among multiple possible types of input devices, used to provide input for the gameplay actions during the past gameplay performance;
performing the asynchronous game play processing between the first user and the second user, wherein the asynchronous game play processing includes: (a) processing, via at least one of the touch input device and the button input device, operation inputs provided by the second user,
(b) reproducing, using the play data of the first user, gameplay actions of the first user associated with received play data; and -certain method of organizing human activity; and
(c) outputting, to a display device, rendered visualizations corresponding to the operation inputs of the second user and the reproduced gameplay actions of the first user. – certain method of organizing human activity.
Specifically, the claim limitations, as indicated above, recite a series of steps and/or instructions to manage an asynchronous multiplayer game between a first user and a second user. This is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity analogous to managing a social activity includes rules and/or instructions. At least one limitation recites a mental process because it recites an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “An information processing system comprising:” “a touch input device configured to receive touch input from a second user;” “at least one button input device configured to be operated by the second user;” “one or more hardware processors configured to performing operations comprising:” “detecting an input device configuration indicating which type of input device from among at least the touch input device and the at least one button input device is used by the second user for asynchronous game play processing;” “transmitting, to a server, a play data request that is based on the detected server to select play data of a first user based on 1) first input device data that indicates the type of input device used for a past gameplay performance of the first user, and 2) the input device configuration to be used for one or more gameplay actions during asynchronous game play processing for the second user;” and “in response to the play data request, receiving the play data of the first user that was selected, the play data of the first user including: a) gameplay data indicating gameplay actions performed during a past gameplay performance by the first user, and b) input device data that indicates the type of input device, among multiple possible types of input devices, used to provide input for the gameplay actions during the past gameplay performance;” “via at least one of the touch input device and the button input device,” and “to a display device” recite steps and/or mere instructions that invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., pre-solution data gathering and/or instructions such as storing, transmitting, and/or displaying information), 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 additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: an information processing system comprising “a touch input device” “at least one button input device” “one or more hardware processors configured to perform operations comprising”, “a server”, and “display device” when viewed alone and/or as a combination of elements do not provide significantly more because they merely invoke highly-generalized computer components of a generic computer as a tool to implement abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment similar to the findings by the court in Alice v. CLS. It follows that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Regarding independent claims 12-14, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 as discussed above. The claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, the limitations have been analyzed and were found to further recite limitations of a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking 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 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-14 are found to recite 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
Prosecution Insights