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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/4/26 has been entered.
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 and 4-21 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 providing lottery results and option to modify provided lottery item (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
receive a lottery request for an item (certain methods of organizing human activity, CMOHA, a lottery is a common commercial interaction and/or managing interactions, i.e., game rules),
execute a lottery process that determines a first item from among an item group including a plurality of items, in response to receiving the lottery request (CMOHA, lottery participation),
determine whether the first item determined by the lottery process is replaceable with a second item related to the first item (CMOHA, lottery provides more than one item and/or a second chance within the lottery), and
generate information for displaying a result screen showing a result of the lottery process, the result screen including an image of the first item determined to be replaceable with the second item (mental process and CMOHA, provide lottery list results, written lottery results and options using pen and paper), wherein
further generate information for displaying a change screen for changing the first item to the second item (mental process and CMOHA, provide lottery list results, written lottery results and options using pen and paper),
the change screen is displayed in response to the image of the first item being selected on the result screen (mental process and CMOHA, provide lottery list results, written lottery results and options using pen and paper),
the change screen displays an image of the second item with which the first item is replaceable (mental process and CMOHA, provide lottery list results, written lottery results and options using pen and paper), and
the second item is a replacement in the result of the lottery process (mental process and CMOHA, provide lottery list results, written lottery results and options using pen and paper).
Claims 1, 19, 20, and 21 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 providing lottery modification result options.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1, 20, 21 recites “processors”; claims 1 and 19-21 recite “first user terminal”, “video”; claim 20 recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (first user terminal, character object, virtual space, video, result screen, change screen) 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 (processor, video, non-transitory computer-readable medium, screens) performing data receiving and sending are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer gaming.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic processors, screens, memories, and data receiving/sending as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-21 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 providing the option to modify lottery results, 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, 3, 7, 8, 16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6697533 as evidence of Google Patents English Translation https://patents.google.com/patent/JP6697533B1/en?oq=JP6697533 to Capcom in view of US Pub. 20150065255 to Yamaguchi.
Claims 1, 19, 20, and 21. Capcom discloses an information processing system comprising:
one or more processors programmed to:
generate information for displaying, on at least a first user terminal, a video that displays at least a first character object of a first user in a virtual space (“in the game device 3, a user executes a predetermined game including a plurality of stages (hereinafter, referred to as “quest”) in which the user operates the player character in the virtual game space via the touch pad 350 to proceed”),
receive a lottery request for an item from the first user terminal (“The medium lottery execution means, when the information regarding the holding medium is generated, and when the association between the holding medium and the identification information of the user is released based on the operation of the user, the lottery The game content associated with the parameter associated with the storage medium may be selected from a list”), and
execute a lottery process that determines a first item from among an item group including a plurality of items, in response to receiving the lottery request (“A medium for executing the medium lottery triggered by a request for a medium lottery based on a user's operation, and selecting the game medium from a lottery list in which a plurality of types of game mediums each having at least one parameter are stored”).
However, Capcom fails to explicitly disclose:
determine whether the first item determined by the lottery process is replaceable with a second item related to the first item, and generate information for displaying in the video a result screen showing a result of the lottery process, the result screen including an image of the first item determined to be replaceable with the second item, wherein
the one or more processors further generate information for displaying, in the video, a change screen for changing the first item to the second item,
the change screen is displayed in response to the image of the first item being selected on the result screen,
the change screen displays an image of the second item with which the first item is replaceable, and
the second item is a replacement in the result of the lottery process (emphasis added).
Yamaguchi teaches determine whether the first item is replaceable with a second item related to the first item, and generate information for displaying in the video a result screen, the result screen including an image of the first item determined to be replaceable with the second item, further generate information for displaying, in the video, a change screen for changing the first item to the second item, the change screen is displayed in response to the image of the first item being selected on the result screen, the change screen displays an image of the second item with which the first item is replaceable, the second item is a replacement in the result of the lottery process (Fig. 12-14, ¶¶79, 105-107, 113, 115). The gaming system of Capcom would have motivation to use the teachings of Yamaguchi in order to give game players the option to modify gaming image features in doing so would make a more fun and interesting gaming experience.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Capcom with the teachings of Yamaguchi in order to give game players the option to modify gaming image features in doing so would make a more fun and interesting gaming experience.
Claim 3. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi teaches wherein
the one or more processors further generate information for displaying, in the video, a change screen for changing the first item to the second item,
the change screen is displayed in response to the image of the first item being selected on the result screen, and
the change screen displays an image of the second item with which the first item is replaceable (see Yamaguchi Figs. 12-14 ¶¶60, 95, 107, character fusion).
Claim 7 Capcom in view of Yamaguchi wherein
the one or more processors display a predetermined icon attached to the image of the first item (see Yamaguchi Fig. 12, first item is labeled “base character”).
Claim 8 Capcom in view of Yamaguchi teaches
wherein when there is a plurality of second items with which the first item can be replaced, the one or more processors determine a display order and/or a display format of images of the second items displayed on the change screen, based on user information and/or event information associated with the second items (see Yamaguchi Figs. 11-13, ¶¶104-106).
Claim 16 Capcom in view of Yamaguchi teaches wherein
the one or more processors are further programmed to:
determine whether or not the lottery request is for a specific item group (see Capcom selecting the game medium from a lottery list in which a plurality of types of game mediums”), and
determine whether the first item is replaceable with the second item (see Yamaguchi Fig. 12, ¶¶105-107).
Claim 18 Capcom in view of Yamaguchi teaches wherein
the first item is a part that makes up the character object (Capcom “game content is a character, but the game content may be an item such as a weapon or equipment, or a jewel consumed”; see Yamaguchi Fig. 11, ¶104).
Claims 2, 4, 6, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6697533 as evidence of Google Patents English Translation https://patents.google.com/patent/JP6697533B1/en?oq=JP6697533 to Capcom in view of US Pub. 20150065255 to Yamaguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2021149407 as evidence of Google Patents English Translation https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2021149407A/en?oq=JP2021149407 to Kurabuchi.
Claim 2. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi teaches wherein
the one or more processors determine that the first item is replaceable with the second item when the second item is not yet associated with the first user (see Yamaguchi Fig. 11, ¶79).
However, Capcom in view of Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose when the second item is not an item determined by the lottery process.
Kurabuchi teaches when the second item is not an item determined by the lottery process (see Kurabuchi “When the closet button 37 is selected, the display of the above-mentioned list screen of body parts and mounted items is started, and the character object CO can be changed” such that second item is chosen from an inventory listing not lottery). The gaming system of Capcom in view of Yamaguchi would have motivation to use the teachings of Kurabuchi in order to provide game players additional ways to modify gaming items in doing so would provide a better gaming experience because of the varying game modification options would give game play more diversity and excitement.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Capcom in view of Yamaguchi with the teachings of Kurabuchi in order to provide game players additional ways to modify gaming items in doing so would provide a better gaming experience.
Claim 4. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi teaches wherein the one or more processors further
generate information for displaying in the video a confirmation screen for associating the second item with the first user in response to the first user selecting the image of the second item displayed on the change screen, and
store the second item in association with the first user in response to receiving a confirmation operation by the first user via the confirmation screen (see Yamaguchi Fig. 6, ¶92; see Kurabuchi "the image of the confirmation screen displayed when the attached item is changed on the closet screen", and "The display of the character object CO changes correspondingly each time each part or item is specified").
Claim 6. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi teaches wherein
the one or more processors further change the image of the first item displayed on the result screen to the image of the second item, in response to the image of the second item displayed on the change screen being selected by the first user (see Yamaguchi Fig. 6, ¶92; see Kurabuchi "The first mounting object is a mounting object having a portion corresponding to the first image in a specific image composed of a first image portion and a second image portion, and the second mounting object is a specific. It can be a wearing object having a portion corresponding to the second image in the image of"; "The first wearing object is a wearing object that can be worn by the first avatar"; and "there are different color items in these items that differ only in color").
Claim 11. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi teaches wherein
the one or more processors further generate information for displaying the video on a second user terminal of a second user (see Kurabuchi “viewing user terminal of the viewing user”, i.e., another user can view game play on their respective device).
Claim 12. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi teaches wherein
the one or more processors further receive, from the second user terminal, a comment about the video and/or a display request for an object (see Kurabuchi “The viewing user can post a comment by inputting text in the comment posting field 206 and pressing the send button 207”).
Claim 17. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi teaches wherein
the second item differs from the first item only in color and/or texture (see Kurabuchi “there are different color parts in these parts that differ only in color”, and “there are different color items in these items that differ only in color”).
Claims 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6697533 as evidence of Google Patents English Translation https://patents.google.com/patent/JP6697533B1/en?oq=JP6697533 to Capcom in view of US Pub. 20150065255 to Yamaguchi and JP2021149407 as evidence of Google Patents English Translation https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2021149407A/en?oq=JP2021149407 to Kurabuchi as applied to claims 1, 4, and 8 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20210197086 to Asuna et al (Asuna).
Claim 5. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein if an application for displaying the video terminates prior to the confirmation operation by the first user.
Asuna teaches wherein if an application for displaying the video terminates prior to the confirmation operation by the first user (see Asuna ¶¶528, 646 “suspend” and “cancels the advantage option of the corresponding player (step S121) and terminates the operations”), the one or more processors generate information for displaying in the video any one of the result screen, the change screen and the confirmation screen when the one or more processors subsequently receive another lottery request from the first user terminal or when the one or more processors receive a display request for an item stored in association with the first user (see Kurabuchi “the viewing user is asked whether or not to change into the second wearing item”, and “The display of the character object CO changes correspondingly each time each part or item is specified”; see Asuna ¶¶137, 230, 528 “reward is actually provided in a lottery event such as gacha”, in this case, a later request for gacha). The gaming system of Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi would have motivation to use the teachings of Asuna in order to allow game players to receive lottery items at a later time in situations where the game play has temporarily been suspended in doing so provides flexibility in the item providing process.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi with the teachings of Asuna in order to allow game players to receive lottery items at a later time in situations where the game play has temporarily been suspended in doing so provides flexibility in the item providing process.
Claim 9. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi, Kurabuchi, and Asuna teaches wherein the user information associated with the second items is the number of users associated with each of the second items (see Asuna Fig. 5, and ¶¶393, 478, 491, respective players’ IDs are associated with available rewards, note, the rewards are the second items).
Claim 10. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi, Kurabuchi, and Asuna teaches wherein the users associated with the second items (see Asuna ¶319) are users having a predetermined relationship with the first user (see Asuna “¶¶144, 194, 344-350 “friend”, “team”).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6697533 as evidence of Google Patents English Translation https://patents.google.com/patent/JP6697533B1/en?oq=JP6697533 to Capcom in view of US Pub. 20150065255 to Yamaguchi, and JP2021149407 as evidence of Google Patents English Translation https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2021149407A/en?oq=JP2021149407 to Kurabuchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20200351552 to Oe et al (Oe).
Claim 13. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi fails to explicitly teach a switch operation for displaying or not displaying the comment and/or the object in the video during display of the result screen (emphasis added).
Oe teaches a switch operation for displaying or not displaying the comment and/or the object (Oe Fig. 5, and ¶¶61 and 63). The gaming system of Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi would have motivation to use the teachings of Oe in order to give game players the option to control display features in hopes to provide a better gaming experience to players.
It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Capcom in view of Yamaguchi and Kurabuchi with the teachings of Oe in order to give game players the option to control display features which would provide a better game viewing experience.
Claim 14. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi, Kurabuchi and Oe teaches wherein
the switch operation is an operation that selects a region of the video outside the result screen (see Oe Fig. 5, and ¶¶56, 61-62, and 84).
Claim 15. Capcom in view of Yamaguchi, Kurabuchi and Oe teaches wherein
when the comment and/or the object is displayed through the switch operation, the one or more processors change the display format of the comment and/or the object so that the comment and/or the object is displayed without overlapping the result screen displayed in the video (see Oe Fig. 5, and ¶¶56, 61-62, and 86).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights