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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 4/15/26. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 16 – 21 have been amended. Claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 21 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 – 8 and 10 – 21 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 – 8 and 10, and 14 - 16 are directed towards a method (process) and claims 11 – 21 are directed towards a system and medium, (machine), 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 computer implemented method comprising: receiving user input from a user during gameplay of a virtual experience; rendering a first game state of gameplay of the virtual experience on a user device based on the user input, wherein the first game state is described by a plurality of objects and a particular object of the plurality of objects is associated with a plurality of properties ; generating a list of changes in properties between the first game state and a second game state, wherein the second game state occurred before the first game state and wherein a particular element in the list of changes includes a text description of a change to a corresponding property and a unique identifier associated with a corresponding object; in response to a size of the list of changes exceeding a size threshold, reducing storage space occupied by the list by removing one or more oldest changes in the list; receiving a request from the user to replay the second game state; and rendering the second game state of gameplay by reversing the list of changes between the first game state and the second game state.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 1, 11, and 16. Dependent claims 2 – 8, 10, 12 – 15, and 17 - 21 further define the abstract idea or relate to the implementation of the abstract idea. The abstract idea is defined in at least the following grouping below:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (rules for playing a game)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for playing a game which falls into the category of organizing human activity, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)).
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 processor and memory along with instructions that display and allow a player to control progress of a game, which is viewed as no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception.
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 a processor, memory, however, viewed as a whole, this additional element is 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 as the claims do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or add an “inventive concept” beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/15/26 with respect to 103 rejection of claims 1 – 8 and 10 - 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1 – 8 and 10 - 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 1 – 8 and 10 - 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicants argue that amended claim 1 “is directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer and/or improvement to a technical field”. More specifically, it is argued that the limitation of “in response to a size of the list of changes exceeding a size threshold, reducing storage space occupied by the list by removing one or more oldest changes in the list”, as an improvement in technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants’ argument that reducing storage space does not appear to be in improvement in the function of the machine. Technology improvements are viewed as gains in performance, reliability, functionality, and while the Applicants do discuss examples technology improvements and solutions in their arguments, (pg. 8), however, the claim language is silent on said improvements and solutions, wherein claim language merely discloses reducing storage space, wherein reducing storage space alone is not viewed as an improvement in technology. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101 as the claims do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or add an “inventive concept” beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights