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/arguments filed on 1/6/26. Claims 1, 17, and 18 were previously amended. Claims 1 – 18 are pending in the current application.
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 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized 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 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 set to be a second running time that is longer than the first running time.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as random generator, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations such as an interface and display components.
iv. 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:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as one or more processors and a memory, however, viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements 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.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden NFL 22, (released 8/2021) in view of Muir et al. (U.S. 9,147,314).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Madden NFL 2, (hereinafter Madden), discloses a game system comprising 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, (0:00 – 1:59 of NPL), programmed to count an elapsed time since a first auto mode was started, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL), 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, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL), wherein the NPL shows the user controlling a single player on offense, in this example the quarterback, wherein the gaming console automatically plays defense instead of the user, wherein the Examiner views the gaming console playing defense as being equivalent to the claim limitation of a first auto mode that runs part of the game without input from the user, wherein the Examiner views the progressing of the game while the gaming system plays defense for the user as being equivalent to the auto mode without input from the user for an elapsed time, reaching a maximum time, based on a user parameter, the user parameter being playing quarterback only without having to play defense.
Madden is silent on disclosing the claim limitations of in response to determining that the user parameter is a first user parameter, the maximum running time is 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 set to be a second running time that is longer than the first running time. In a related art, Muir discloses a game system comprising memory, (fig. 1), that stores a 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), wherein Muir further discloses determining that the user parameter is a first user parameter, the maximum running time is 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 set to be a second running time that is longer than the first running time, (“Method 2000 of FIG. 20 outlines some methods of using a PGA that has been created according to the invention. In step 2001, the PGA is activated. As we have seen, this activation may occur in a variety of ways. In some implementations, the player will have previously specified dates and times on which the PGA will activate”, col. 43, lines 29 – 34), wherein the Examiner views Muir’s autonomous gaming and the player specifying dates and times on which to activate the autonomous gaming as being equivalent to the claimed auto mode parameters and setting multiple running times that the auto mode should be set.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to combine set run times of Muir into the art disclosed by Madden in order to provide excitement and stimulation outside the realm of traditional gaming and activities, as disclosed by Muir, (col. 1, lines 42 – 44).
Regarding claim 2, Madden discloses wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: advance 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, 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, (1:35 – 158 of NPL).
Regarding claim 2, Madden 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, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL).
Regarding claim 3, Madden 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, (1:35 – 158 of NPL).
Regarding claim 4, Madden 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, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL).
Regarding claim 5, Madden 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, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL).
Regarding claim 6, Madden 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, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL).
Regarding claim 7, Madden 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, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL).
Regarding claim 8, Madden discloses wherein the status information includes (i) the maximum running time and the elapsed time since the first auto mode was started, or (ii) a remaining time obtained by subtracting the elapsed time from the maximum running time, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL).
Regarding claim 9, Madden 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, (1:35 – 158 of NPL).
Regarding claim 10, Madden discloses wherein the one or more processors 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, (1:35 – 158 of NPL).
Regarding claim 11, Madden discloses wherein 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, (1:35 – 158 of NPL).
Regarding claim 12, Madden 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, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL).
Regarding claim 13, Madden 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, (1:35 – 158 of NPL).
Regarding claims 14 - 16, Madden 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 and a mode switching button to switch to the first auto mode, (1:35 – 1:37 of NPL).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 18 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
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, 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715