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 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-15, 17, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning an electronic device (i.e., a machine) in claims 17, 19, 21, a method for processing information (i.e., a process) in claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-15, 23, 24 and a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. a manufacture) in claim 22.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A method for processing recommendation information, performed by a system, and the method comprises:
generating, by a first terminal device of the system, a graphical user interface by executing and rendering a game application on a display of the first terminal device;
wherein the system comprises a server, the first terminal device and at least one second terminal device, and the first terminal device and the at least one second terminal device are communicated with the server;
sending, by the server, recommendation information to the first terminal device according to operation information of a first game player corresponding the first terminal device and a game interaction between the first game player and at least one second game player corresponding to the at least one second terminal device; wherein the recommendation information is used to recommend to the first game player a second game player whose game interaction with the first game player meets a preset interaction condition; wherein the preset interaction condition;
displaying, by the first terminal device, according to the recommendation information a recommendation and appreciation interface for the second game player recommended on the graphical user interface of the first terminal device; and
in response to an appreciation operation performed by the first terminal device the second game player recommended in the recommendation and appreciation interface, sending, by the first terminal device, first appreciation information to a second terminal device corresponding to the second game player recommended;
wherein the recommendation and appreciation interface comprises an appreciation control, and the in response to the appreciation operation to the second game player recommended in the recommendation and appreciation interface, sending, by the first terminal device, the first appreciation information to the second terminal device corresponding to the second game player recommended comprises:
in response to an operation on the appreciation control in the recommendation and appreciation interface by the first terminal device, displaying an appreciation label selection window above the appreciation control, wherein the appreciation label selection window comprises a plurality of appreciation labels for the first game player to select from; wherein the plurality of appreciation labels comprises a preset label determined based on the game interaction; and
in response to a selection operation on the appreciation label selection window by the first terminal device, selecting, by the first terminal device, a first appreciation label and sending, by the first terminal device, the first appreciation information to the second terminal device, wherein the first appreciation information comprises the first appreciation label.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for enabling the transmission of information between parties responsive to the observation, evaluation, and judgement of interaction conditions as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interactions and appreciation interface.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a server, and terminal devices it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a server, and terminal devices amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0159], [0163]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered, as a whole, amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0159], [0163]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2, 4-6, 8-15, 17, 19, and 21-24 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a computer readable storage medium, a computer, a server system, and a gaming device as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 9 through 13 of the above dated remarks the Applicant, presents the following arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, including:
i. That the claimed inventions concern the implementation and execution of a game application based on the interaction system, that cannot be replicated by human mind with the benefit of pen and paper and as such would not fall under the enumerated grouping of a Mental Process (Applicant’s Remarks Page 10);
ii. That the claimed invention is not merely abstract cognitive process but instead implements concrete functions by computer devices and programs that provides the technical solution to encourage the object data-driven appreciation of players by other players for events occurring during game play (Applicant’s Remarks Pages 12-13);
iii. That the claimed invention introduces additional elements that are significantly more that the mere abstract idea because the system automatically guides the player though recommended appreciation actions in a selection window and therewith improves player collaborative engagement between players that improves game play experience for the game players (Applicant’s Remarks Pages 9-11);
Responsive to the preceding the following is respectfully noted:
i.a) The claimed invention recites an abstract idea that falls under enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for enabling the transmission of information between parties responsive to meeting interaction conditions (encompassing the argued implementation and execution of a game application based on the interaction system). The applicant presented arguments do not provide an explicit basis why the invention would not be performable by the human mind with the benefit of pen and paper. Notably the utilization claimed invention of one or more computers does not exclude the claimed invention from falling under this enumerated grouping as proposed. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Subsection III.C) and as such the mere involvement of a computer utilized merely as tool would not separate the claimed invention from this grouping as implied but not explicitly stated by the Applicant’s presented arguments.
ii.a) Ensuring that players receive appreciation from other players (as described as providing an improved player experience) based on a data driven approach(objectively) references improvements in game rules themselves that utilize the underlying computer technology merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) but does not improve the functionality of the underlying computer system in a manner consistent with an improvement in technology as set forth by MPEP 2106.05(a).
iii.a) For the reasons set forth in the preceding section and the rejection presented herein above the claimed invention does not support the presence of ‘significantly more’ when considered under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test. The use of a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea is not sufficient to impart subject matter eligibility as proposed (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715