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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 5/14/26. Claims 1, 17, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1 – 18 are pending in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: It must be determined whether the invention falls in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 1 – 16 and 18 are directed towards a system and medium, (machine), and claim 17 is directed towards a device and method, (process), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a:
Prong 1: It must be determined whether the invention is directed to judicially recognized exception. Claim 1 is analyzed below with limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A game system comprising: a memory that stores a user parameter related to a user of a game in association with user identification information that identifies the user; and one or more processors programmed to: count an elapsed time since a first auto mode was started, and in the first auto mode, run a game part of the game without input from the user until the elapsed time reaches a maximum running time that is determined based on the user parameter, wherein in response to determining that the user parameter is a first user parameter, the maximum running time is automatically set to be a first running time, and in response to determining that the user parameter is a second user parameter that is larger than the first user parameter, the maximum running time is automatically set to be a second running time that is longer than the first running time, wherein the user parameter does not include the first and second running times.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 17 and 18. Dependent claims 2 - 16 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following groupings below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior)
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of managing personal behavior which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a game system that receives game parameters from a user that corresponds to automatic plays of a game, wherein the game system further discloses counting an elapsed time of an auto mode and playing a game in the auto mode without input from the user, wherein the game system further discloses determining first and second run times that corresponds to the game parameters set by the user. Controlling a game system that allows a user to input game parameters to allow automatic game play of a game represents managing personal behavior. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more human, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a game system stores user parameters corresponding to an auto mode of a game, wherein the game system further discloses determining maximum run times that is based on the user parameters, and automatically setting first and second maximum run times after determining first and second user parameters. The claims recite instructions disclosing these features. Here, a human can observe the storing of user parameters, observe the game being played in auto mode, and then determine the maximum run time of the game being played in auto mode, based on parameters set by the user. For example, in the event that a player is playing a slot machine game in a gaming establishment, where autonomous gaming, (auto mode), is available, wherein the user inputs bet parameters such as bet $5 for 10 minutes and $1 for 15 minutes, (first and second user parameters), a human can observe the bet parameters being stored the slot machine, observe the autonomous gaming outcomes, and then make the determination of the maximum run times based on the state of the game.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
The claims recite a generic processors and memory along with instructions that count stores user parameters for a game to play in an auto mode, and determining maximum run times based on the user parameters, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b: It must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim language does recite one or more processors, memory, and game parameters associated with a user, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Filipour et al. 2011/0111820 par. 0002 regarding gaming systems determining elapsed times as being known in the art). Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muir et al. (U.S. 9,147,314) in view of Saito (U.S. 2009/0054126).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Muir discloses a game system, medium, and method, (fig. 2), comprising a memory, (“the gaming unit 48 may include a controller 100 that may include a program memory”, col. 11, lines 47 - 48), that stores a user parameter related to a user of a game, (“PGAs can provide autonomous gaming (or non-game activities) on behalf of a player according to predetermined rules and parameters”, col. 39, lines 57 – 59), in association with user identification information that identifies the user, (“the player is identified, for example by reading a player tracking card, verifying a password, etc.”, col. 36, lines 41 – 43), and one or more processors, (“the gaming unit 48 may include a controller 100 that may include a program memory 102, a microcontroller or microprocessor (MP) 104”, col. 11, lines 47 – 49), a first auto mode, (“Virtual players, also referred to herein as player game agents ("PGAs"), may act on behalf of real players in some implementations of the invention. A PGA may be able to play games autonomously”, col. 39, lines 47 – 50, wherein the Examiner views the player game agent acting on behalf of the a real player autonomously as being equivalent to an auto mode), in the first auto mode, run a game part of the game without input from the user based on the user parameter, (“PGAs can provide autonomous gaming (or non-game activities) on behalf of a player according to predetermined rules and parameters”, col. 39, lines 57 – 59), in response to determining that the user parameter is a first or second parameter the maximum times are automatically set to be first or second run times, wherein the parameter does not include first and second running times, (“the player inputs wagering instructions and other financial parameters. Here, the player may indicate a maximum bet, an average bet, a maximum amount of money that will be available for gaming during a specified time period, e.g., $100 per night, $500 per week”, col. 41, lines 9 – 13, wherein the Examiner views betting $100 per night as a first, $500 per week as betting limits, (first and second parameters), set by the player at a specific time of day or week, wherein the betting limits do not include maximum running times set by the player, which is instead determined by the game system, which is viewed by the Examiner as being equivalent to run times being automatically set wherein the user parameters do not include first and second running times).
Muir, as cited above, teaches an auto mode, however, Muir is silent on counting an elapsed time when a first auto mode is started. In a related art, Saito discloses a game system, (“It is an object of the present invention to provide a gaming machine”), that counts an elapsed time until the elapsed time reaches a maximum running time, (“the CPU 51 determines whether or not the elapsed time counted in the timer 59 reaches a regular time previously determined ”, par. 0105), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Muir as meeting the claim limitation of counting an elapsed time since a first auto mode was started.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to combine the elapsed time teachings of Saito into the art disclosed by Muir in order to easily track time which provides a more exciting gaming challenge.
Regarding claim 2, Muir discloses advancing the game part based on input from the user in a manual mode, based on a first play time spent to advance the game part for one cycle in the manual mode, (“To allow the player to control the play of the video poker game, a plurality of player-selectable buttons may be displayed”, col. 18, lines 55 – 56), determine a first processing cycle required to run the game part for one cycle in the first auto mode, and in the first auto mode, run the game part for a maximum number of cycles that is determined based on the maximum running time and the first processing cycle, (“Virtual players, also referred to herein as player game agents ("PGAs"), may act on behalf of real players in some implementations of the invention. A PGA may be able to play games autonomously”, col. 39, lines 47 – 50).
Regarding claim 3, Muir discloses wherein the one or more processors cause a user device of the user to display (i) the first play time and (ii) a mode switching button that selects a transition to the first auto mode in response to completion of the game part in the manual mode, (“Here, the player is prompted to interact with a GUI of a host device, such as a networked PC, workstation, laptop, PDA, gaming machine, etc., in order to define parameters for a PGA”, col. 40, lines 51 – 56, wherein the Examiner views the player defining parameters for a PGA as being equivalent to switching from a manual mode to an auto mode).
Regarding claim 4, Muir discloses wherein the one or more processors start the game part without requiring a consumption of points that increase along with the passage of time, (“To allow the player to control the play of the video poker game, a plurality of player-selectable buttons may be displayed”, col. 18, lines 55 – 56, wherein the Examiner views allowing the player to play the video poker game by displaying a plurality of buttons as meeting the claim limitation of starting a game part without requiring a consumption of points).
Regarding claim 5, Muir discloses wherein in the first auto mode, the one or more processors run the game part while an application for the game is being run in the background, (“A PGA may be able to play games autonomously, e.g., when the associated player is at a different location and/or is not aware of the PGA's current activities”, col. 39, lines 49 – 53, wherein the Examiner views the games being played autonomously while the player is at a different location as being equivalent to the game being played in the background).
Regarding claim 6, Muir discloses wherein in the first auto mode, the one or more processors run the game part while an application for the game is not being run, (“If the PGA is capable of negotiating on behalf of its human, increased ability may mean better "comps," such as a better hotel room, a ticket for a better show, higher-quality drinks or food, etc.”, col. 40, lines 5 – 8, wherein Examiner views the PGA negotiating on behalf of the player as being equivalent to the game being in auto mode without the game being played).
Regarding claim 7, Muir discloses wherein the one or more processors cause a user device of the user to display status information showing a status of the first auto mode during running of the game part in the first auto mode, (“The PGA may, for example, merely send a message to the player indicating that it was unable to play because of insufficient funds, at which time the process would end”, col. 44, lines 11 – 14, wherein the Examiner views the PGA sending a message to the player indicating that it is unable to play as being equivalent to displaying a status of the auto mode).
Regarding claim 8, Muir, as cited above, discloses sending status information, however, as stated above, Muir is silent on counting an elapsed time. As stated above, Saito discloses (“the CPU 51 determines whether or not the elapsed time counted in the timer 59 reaches a regular time previously determined ”, par. 0105), wherein the Examiner views this in combination with Muir as meeting the claim limitation of status information including maximum and elapsed running time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to combine the elapsed time teachings of Saito into the art disclosed by Muir in order to improve performance and help manage game animations by fixing frame rate bugs and multiply speed.
Regarding claim 9, Muir discloses wherein the one or more processors cause a user device of the user to display status information showing a status of the first auto mode during running of the game part in the first auto mode, and the status information includes a number of completed cycles that is determined based on (i) the elapsed time since the first auto mode was started and (ii) the first processing cycle, (“For example, software running on the AGEU (perhaps the PGA itself) may send the player an email summary of the gaming session, including the number and type of games played, gaming results, bonus points and/or monetary outcome, etc., col. 44, lines 50 – 54, wherein the Examiner views the PGA sending a summary of a gaming session including the number of games played as being equivalent to showing a status of the auto mode including a number of completed cycles).
Regarding claim 10, Muir discloses calculate the number of completed cycles according to an application for the game being activated on the user device of the user after a first time period, which is shorter than the maximum running time, has elapsed since the first auto mode was started, (“it may be determined in step 2035 whether the PGA has wagered a maximum amount, whether the gaming session has lasted for a maximum time period”, col. 44, lines 39 – 42).
Regarding claim 11, Muir discloses wherein in the first auto mode, the one or more processors calculate the number of completed cycles upon a transition of an application for the game from a background to a foreground, (“saving the first results of a first session of autonomous gaming operations”, col. 2, lines 30 – 31).
Regarding claim 12, Muir discloses wherein in a second auto mode, the one or more processors cause the game part to advance without input from the user only when an application for the game is running in a foreground, (“performing a second session of autonomous gaming operations”, col. 2, lines 33 – 34).
Regarding claim 13, Muir discloses wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: determine a second processing cycle required to run the game part for one cycle in the first auto mode based on a second play time spent to advance the game part for one cycle in the second auto mode, and in the first auto mode, run the game part for a number of second cycles that is determined based on the maximum running time and the second processing cycle, (“The method may also include these steps: saving the first results of a first session of autonomous gaming operations involving a first portion of an activity sequence at a first time; retrieving the first results at a second time; and performing a second session of autonomous gaming operations involving a second portion of the activity sequence”, col. 2, lines 29 – 34).
Regarding claim 14, Muir discloses wherein in response to completion of the game part in the second auto mode, the one or more processors cause a user device of the user to display the second play time, (“The method may also include these steps: saving the first results of a first session of autonomous gaming operations involving a first portion of an activity sequence at a first time; retrieving the first results at a second time; and performing a second session of autonomous gaming operations involving a second portion of the activity sequence”, col. 2, lines 29 – 34).
Muir, as cited above, discloses switching from a first auto mode to a second auto, but is silent on disclosing switching from the second auto mode to the first auto mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to switch from a second to a first auto mode, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 15, Muir discloses wherein the second auto mode includes (i) a limited mode in which a limited game function among a plurality of game functions is not used and (ii) a non-limited mode in which the limited game function is usable, and the one or more processors advance the game part in either the limited mode or the non- limited mode according to a selection by the user, (“When the PGA has sufficient credit, the SGA will permit gaming, e.g., as described elsewhere herein. (Step 2150.) In this example, the PGA's gaming is permitted only within certain parameters, e.g., according to a predetermined minimum or maximum number of games, a predetermined minimum or maximum wagering amount, etc.”, col. 46, lines 54 – 59, wherein the Examiner views the SGA permitting gaming as being equivalent to a second auto mode and the PGA being permitted only within certain parameters as being equivalent to the second auto mode including a limited mode).
Regarding claim 16, Muir discloses wherein in the game part, a character uses a plurality of game functions, and for each of the plurality of game functions, the one or more processors set whether or not the respective game function is usable in the second auto mode, (“Virtual players, also referred to herein as player game agents ("PGAs"), may act on behalf of real players in some implementations of the invention. A PGA may be able to play games autonomously”, col. 39, lines 47 – 50 and retrieving the first results at a second time; and performing a second session of autonomous gaming operations involving a second portion of the activity sequence”, col. 2, lines 29 – 34, wherein the Examiner views the virtual player, (PGA), as being equivalent to a character using a plurality of game functions).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 18, with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicants argue that “the independent claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application”. More specifically, it is argued that, as disclosed in the specification, to avoid the technical problem of “excessing consumption of computing resources”, the specification discloses the technical solution of “setting the maximum running time for the auto mode dynamically according to user parameters”, “the application restricts the running time of the auto mode such that consumption of computing resources can be suppressed (1 [0010] of the publication). Stated otherwise, restricting the auto mode running time in this manner will reduce the processing load on the computer (1 [0081] of the publication).” While the Examiner does acknowledge that Applicant’s specification may disclose a practical application, as discussed in the Applicant’s arguments, however, the current claim language does not recite steps that represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of restricting the running time of an auto mode, because the additional elements, one or more processors and memory, are recited generically. For example, the current claims do not recite how the one or more processors and memory, solves the problem of avoiding excessing consumption of computing resources by reducing the load on the computer. Restricting the running time of auto mode is viewed as a game rule than a technical improvement such as reducing Steps like storing, programming, and counting, for example, are generic instructions to apply an abstract idea using conventional components. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to the 103 rejection, the Examiner does agree with Applicants arguments regarding Madden NFL 22, therefore, Madden NFL 22 has been removed from the rejection, however, a new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Muir and in further view of Saito cited above. Furthermore, it has been argued, with respect to the previous rejection, Muir “fails to disclose setting different running times automatically based on user parameters that do not include running times”. While the Examiner agreed to this during the interview, after further review of the Muir reference, the Examiner reverses this decision. The current claim language discloses that in response to determining user parameters, running times are automatically set, wherein the user parameters do not include running times. Muir discloses the player setting wagering instructions during a specified time period, such as e.g., $100 per night, $500 per week, col. 41, lines 9 – 13, wherein the Examiner views betting $100 per night as a first, $500 per week as betting limits, (first and second parameters), set by the player at a specific time of day or week, that do not include maximum running times set by the player, which is instead determined by the game system, wherein Muir further expands on this by disclosing that a game session would because of insufficient funds, (“The PGA may, for example, merely send a message to the player indicating that it was unable to play because of insufficient funds, at which time the process would end”, col. 44, lines 11 – 13), wherein this teaching is also viewed by the Examiner as the game system determining the maximum running and not a player set parameter. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Muir discloses at least this claim limitation.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights