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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to tracking the status of game objectives and missions (mental process and organizing human activity) involving:
monitoring a prescribed address in a memory area (mental process, can done in human mind or using pen and paper, e.g., review specific location within written notes);
changing in value on occurrence of a prescribed event in a game (mental process and organizing human activity – judgment of counter or parameter according to game circumstances);
determining a status of accomplishment of an objective and/or mission (mental process and organizing human activity – judgment by a person according to game rules whether an objective/mission has been completed)
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of tracking the status of game objectives and missions.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1, 7, 13, recite “non-transitory storage medium encoded with a computer readable game program executable by a computer of information processing apparatus”, “emulator”, “game program”, “memory”, “server”; in additional, claim 19 recite “a processor”, “a game device”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (computer, information processing apparatus, game device, network) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (computer, non-transitory storage medium, server, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, emulator, and processor) are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-24 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of tracking the status of game objectives and missions, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20120015748 to Osada in view of US Pub. 20130172086 to Ikenaga and further evidence of JP Pub. 2001340641 to Taho et al (Taho).
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19. Osada discloses a game system comprising:
a plurality of information processing apparatuses (Fig. 13, and ¶194); and
a server provided to communicate with the plurality of information processing apparatuses over a network (Fig. 13, and ¶216), wherein
each of the plurality of information processing apparatuses includes a computer (Fig. 1, and ¶83),
the computer
executes a game program (¶¶86-87),
monitors in a memory area used as a result of execution of the game program, changing in value on occurrence of a prescribed event in a game (Fig. 5, and ¶¶24, 110, and 116, note, game tasks are related to game events, and electronic memories has different addresses or locations to store data; some game task require a certain number of items which is related to a value, for instance, “Obtain 50 coins”, where the numerical value of coins changes each time a player collects a coin),
determines a status of accomplishment of an objective set in advance based on transition of the value (Fig. 5, and ¶¶24, 122, and 136, for instance, “obtain 50 coins”, where the number of coins are tracked in the memory of a game device to determine when the task has been completed),
transmits the status of accomplishment to the server (Figs. 8, and 9, and ¶¶125, 133, and 136, where each accomplishment performed by a respective player is sent to another player when playing “cooperative play”; also see Fig. 13, and ¶216, where the accomplishment data is sent and received to each respective game device), and
the server (Fig. 13, and ¶216)
makes determination as to accomplishment of an online mission set (¶¶11, 15, and 19, “it is possible for one person to participate in a game, or for a plurality of people to participate together. Play in which one player plays the game is called "individual play", and play in which a plurality of players play the same game together is called "cooperative play".”) for the plurality of information processing apparatuses (Fig. 13, and ¶¶192, 194, and 219) based on the status of accomplishment of the objective transmitted from the plurality of information processing apparatuses (Figs. 8 and 9, and ¶¶125, 133, and 136), and
transmits to the plurality of information processing apparatuses, information on a status of accomplishment of the online mission based on a result of determination (Figs, 8 and 9, and ¶¶122-124, 133, and 136, when players are playing together, task notifications are sent to each player).
However, Osada fails to explicitly disclose:
causing an emulator to execute a game program; and
monitoring a prescribed address in a memory area (emphasis added).
Ikenaga in view of Taho teaches causing an emulator to execute a game program; and monitoring a prescribed address in a memory area (see Ikenaga Fig. 5, element 50, and ¶41 “register (e.g., a program counter) that is managed by the emulator”; also see Ikenaga ¶¶55-56, 77, and 66 “game situation monitoring unit 50 may monitor the emulated memory images or register values which are managed by the emulator”; and see Taho “Virtual registers and the like corresponding to the registers incorporated in U are assigned to predetermined addresses”, and “storage area of the specific address of the second game machine, and if there is a process for the A register of the CPU of the second game machine, Reference numeral 22 emulates the functions of the CPU and GPU of the second game machine by accessing the virtual A register at a specific address set in the work RAM 25. The GPU, work RAM, V-RAM, etc. of the second game machine are emulated in the same manner”) in a memory area (see Ikenaga ¶27, “RAM”, and ¶37, “storage devices and other memory devices”, Fig. 5, element 46 “data storage unit”) used as a result of execution of the game program by the emulator (see Ikenaga ¶¶40 and 43), the prescribed address changing in value on occurrence of a prescribed event in a game (see Ikenaga ¶17 “storage unit includes pieces of game situation data at times when game stages corresponding to stages of progress of the game are started, and the game situation data obtaining unit obtains game situation data at a start of one of the game stages that corresponds to the play point associated with the execution request”; and see Taho “a scene of watching a racing game or the like played by a plurality of players, an event that the lap time is updated, a final lap is entered, or a goal is reached”). The gaming system of Osada would have motivation to use the teachings of Ikenaga in view of Taho in order to further enable execution of another application relevant to the game by utilizing ROM data of the game, thus, instead of creating the whole application from the beginning, the ROM data and the behavior of the emulator are utilized, whereby the amount of data can be reduced while playing a video game
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Osada with the teachings of Ikenaga in view Taho in order to reduce the development cost, and reproducibility for operation of the original game can be enhanced.
Claims 2, 8, 14, and 20. Osada discloses wherein the status of accomplishment of the objective is determined based on at least one of presence/absence of change during the game, the number of times of change, a value at prescribed timing, and a cumulative sum over a prescribed period, of the value at the prescribed address (Figs. 5, 8, and 9, and ¶¶122-124, 133, and 136).
Claims 3, 9, 15, and 21. Osada discloses wherein the value at the prescribed address is reset or changes again in accordance with progress of the game (¶¶124 and 144, for instance, “Obtain 50 coins”, where the numerical value of coins changes each time a player collects a coin, i.e., when a player completes a task, this causes change to progress of the challenge, mission, or the like).
Claims 4, 10, 16, and 22. Osada discloses wherein the value at the prescribed address changes when a player character performs a prescribed action in the game (¶¶157-160, “task”, for instance, “Find 5 or more treasure chests”, where the numerical value of treasure chest changes each time a player finds a treasure chest).
Claims 5, 11, 17, and 23. Osada in view of Ikenaga teaches further causing the computer to generate and output a game screen resulting from superimposition of information on the status of accomplishment of the objective on a game image (see Osada Figs. 8, and 9) based on execution of the game program by the emulator (see Ikenaga ¶¶40 and 43)when the value at the prescribed address changes (see Osada Figs. 5, 8, and 9, and ¶¶122-124, 133, and 136, again, for instance, “Obtain 50 coins”, the associated memory location changes the coin value each time a player collects a coin).
Claims 6, 12, 18, and 24. Osada in view of Ikenaga teaches further causing the computer to generate and output a game screen resulting from combination of a game image (see Osada Figs. 5, 8, and 9) based on execution of the game program by the emulator (see Ikenaga ¶¶40 and 43) and an image showing the status of accomplishment of the online mission obtained from the server (see Osada Figs. 5, 8, and 9, and ¶¶122-124, 133, and 136).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715