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
Claims 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-26 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to execute game processing comprising:
moving a player character in a virtual space based on a first operation input;
automatically moving a first non-player character in the virtual space;
if the player character and the first non-player character have a predetermined positional relationship, in accordance with a second operation input, causing the player character to transition to an implementable state where the player character can implement a predetermined action having a first effect; and
if the player character is in the implementable state, in accordance with a third operation input, causing the player character to perform the predetermined action having the first effect.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are mental processes, as all of the steps could be performed entirely with the human mind or with pen and paper as a human could play a game such as a tabletop role playing game, wherein a player character and a non-player character are moved within the space and the player character may perform a predetermined action based on the positional relationship.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The operation inputs is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The Non transitory CRM, processor, and the space being virtual is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at 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.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The operation inputs is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Non transitory CRM, processor, and the space being virtual does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at 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.
The dependent claims of 2-10, 12-20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at 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.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-12, 19-22, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moro (US 20060258443) in view of Washington (US 20160171827)
In claims 1, 11, 21, and 24 Moro discloses
Moving a player character in virtual space based on a first operation input (paragraph 85, 109)
If the player character and the first non-player character have a predetermined positional relationship, in accordance with a second operation input, causing the player character to transition to an implementable state where the player character can implement a predetermined action having a first effect (paragraph 109, Figure 16 #S96 the positional relationship is that the coordinates of the NPC are outside the call range, which causes the PC to move towards the target, see Figure 16 #S99 thus moving the PC into an implementable state. )
If the player character is in the implementable state, in accordance with a third operation input, causing the player character to perform the predetermined action having the first effect (figure 16 #S97 S98, paragraph 81, once the player character has been moved within call range of the NPC, the action of calling the NPC may be implemented)
In claims 11 and 21 Moro further discloses a processor and a storage medium (paragraph 56, 72)
Moro fails to disclose Automatically moving a first non-player character in the virtual space, however Washington discloses automatically moving a first non-player character in the virtual space (paragraph 95 discloses NPCs moving to surround the mercenary and attack, paragraph 360 discloses the NPC and player taking turn moving). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Moro with Washington in order to allow for a more dynamic and realistic world where the NPCs don’t stand in one place.
In claims 2, 12, 22, and 25, Washington discloses if the player character is caused to perform the predetermined action having the first effect, causing the player character to transition from the implementable state to a non-implementable state where the player character cannot implement the predetermined action having the first effect (paragraph 435, when an action is performed, the action goes on “cooldown” and is not able to be implemented for a particular period of time.)
In claims 9 and 19, Moro in view of Washington discloses automatically moving a second NPC in the virtual space and if the player character and the second NPC have a predetermined position relationship, producing a second effect in accordance with the second operation input (as the limitation is repeatable, the player character may call a second NPC, and in view of Washington, this discloses moving additional NPCs)
In claims 10 and 20, Moro in view of Washington discloses the claimed invention except causing the first NPC and second NPC to automatically battle, however Washington discloses a team of heroes (paragraph 360) and that the player and non-player characters battle (paragraph 360), and Official notice is taken that it was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for players to have NPCs as allies or teammates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Moro in view of Washington with this well known technique in order to allow for the player to not need to control as many characters to reduce player burden.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715