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 filed on 7/9/26. Claims 1, 11, 21, and 23 have been amended, and claims 14 and 18 were previously cancelled. Claims 1 – 13, 15 – 17, and 19 – 26 are pending in the current application.
Allowable Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1 – 13, 15 – 17, and 19 – 26, prior art systems do not anticipate or teach all of the features of the claimed invention including the generation of a determination area, wherein the determination area expands corresponding to a lapse of time, prior to a hit by a remote attack.
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 – 13, 15 – 17, and 19 – 26 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 - 22 are directed towards a medium, system, and an apparatus, (machine), and claims 23 - 26 are directed towards a method, (process), 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.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed, cause a processor of an information processing apparatus to execute game processing comprising: controlling a player character to at least move based on a first operation input; based on a second operation input, initiating a remote attack of the player character in a virtual space; generating, for display, a target image indicating a position for the remote attack; generating a determination area in the virtual space in accordance with providing a predetermined instruction based on a third operation input; generating, for display, a determination area image associated with the determination area; expanding the determination area in accordance with a lapse of time; updating display of the determination area image in association with the determination area expanding in accordance with the
lapse of time; and in association with the remote attack hitting an object in the virtual space in the determination area: producing a first effect at a place hit by the remote attack; and generating a display of the virtual space, that includes a visual effect associated with the first effect, at the place hit by the remote attack.
The abstract idea is defined by the underlined portions exemplary claim 1, with substantially similar features found in claims 11, 21, and 23. Dependent claims 2 – 10, 12, 13, 15 – 17, 19, 20, and 24 - 26 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:
Mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment)
The claims are directed towards an abstract idea of rules for conducting a game which falls into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106/04(a)(2)(II)(C)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a gaming system that executes a video game wherein a player controls a player character in a virtual space in order to progress through the game. The claimed invention can be practically performed as a mental process by a human managing a game character in a video game. A human can take control of a game character and make game determinations in their mind, see Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claims are also directed towards a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans, which fall into the category of mental processes, (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). More specifically, the claimed invention recites a video game that receives input from a user that controls a player character to progress through the game, the claims further disclose the player character initiating a remote attack on a target at a position in the virtual space, generating and expanding a determination area corresponding to a lapse in time, and producing an effect based on a hit of the remote attack. The claims recite instructions with these features. Here, a human can observe the position of a target in the determination area in the virtual space, and then make a determination of a next step to make that is favorable for the user. For example, in the event that a user is playing a role-playing game, (e.g. World of Warcraft), a human can observe the area where an enemy character is located, (a position of a target), wherein a human can then make the determination of how to initiate a remote attack towards the enemy character. Therefore, since the claimed invention can practically be performed in the human mind, it represents an ineligible abstract mental process. (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307).
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 storage medium, (claim 11), along with instructions that generates and presents a video game to a player, wherein a player initiates a remote attack towards a target, 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, storage medium, and a player character that is associated with a user, however, viewed as a whole, these additional elements are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art, (See Fujioka et al. U.S. 2014/0221094 regarding player-controlled characters attacking an enemy target as being known in the art). The claims further recite producing a visual effect corresponding to the remote attack. Nothing in the claims provide details about the visual effect representing a technical improvement. (See Ohnuma et al. col. 3, lines 56 – 59 regarding animation effects corresponding to an attack as being conventional). The recitation that a visual effect is produced corresponding to an attack is not tethered to a specific, claims technical mechanism. 2106.05(g) (insignificant extra-solution activity). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 – 13, 15 – 17, and 19 – 26, Applicants argue that “the claims are not directed to an "abstract idea," and in any case are tied to a practical application and recite "significantly more." More specifically, it is argued that the features in claim 1, for example, generating a target image, generating a determination area, expanding the determination area, etc., “are directed to specific improvements in video game and/or software technology”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner views these examples as game rules rather than technical improvements. Merely disclosing that a “processor” and a “storage medium” performing game rules does not, as claimed, improve the functioning of computers. The current claim language does not recite how the additional components improve upon drawbacks in conventional technology. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicants further argue that “various dependent claims also include additional technical elements that provide technical improvements”. The Applicants further recite dependent claim 25 as example, reciting “"in association with the remote attack hitting the object in the virtual space in the determination area, producing the first effect at the place hit by the remote attack and causing a first damage amount to the object; and in association with the remote attack hitting the object in the virtual space outside the determination area, producing a second effect at the place hit by the remote attack and causing a second damage amount to the object." By way of a non-limiting example, the remote attack and the determination area are associated with each other, and in a case where the remote attack hits the object inside the determination area, a first effect is produced (and displayed). Likewise, in a case where the remote attack hits the object outside the determination area, a second (different) effect is produced (and displayed).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to above, the Examiner views these examples as game rules rather than technical improvements. The current dependent claims do not recite how the additional components improve the interaction between the human-computer interface, nor do they recite how the gameplay is more balanced. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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
/JUSTIN L MYHR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
