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
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 09/20/2022. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Claims 8-10 were cancelled and claims 12-13 were added.
Claims 1-7, and 11-13 are now pending.
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 to 7 and 11 to 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims an information processing device, and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium in Claims 1 to 7 and 11 to 13. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent Claim 1 (Currently Amended) (and similarly recited Independent Claim 11) recites the following (with emphasis): “1. (Currently Amended) An information processing device that communicates a terminal device comprising a GPS sensor and a camera and causes the terminal device to execute a
a storage; and
a controller that:
sets up an event occurrence area at a predetermined location in a virtual game space, and associates the event occurrence area with an area in a real space,
identifies a current location of the terminal device in the real space based on location information acquired by the GPS sensor,
detects a current state of the area in the real space based on image data captured by the camera,
detects a user participation status in the event occurrence area based on the current state of the area in the real space,
stores, in the storage, participation status information indicating [[a]] the user participation status in [[an]] the event occurrence area,
detects whether the event occurrence area is in a crowded state based on the participation status information, and
after detecting that the event occurrence area is in the crowded state, restricts participation to the event occurrence area in the virtual game space, and sets up another event occurrence area in the virtual game space.
The italicized portions of the claim generally encompasses the abstract idea. The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as: rule for conducting a game involving managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. As indicated above, independent Claim 1 (and their respective similarly recited independent Claim 11) recites at least one step or instruction or rule for: (i) (rule for conducting a game involving managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Therefore, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2 to 7, and 12 to 13 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The above-identified abstract idea recited in the Claim is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of storage and controller are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using for e.g., computer instructions executed by a computer (e.g., a controller as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Step 2B requires that if the claim(s) encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations that are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”):
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d)
None of Claims 1 to 1, and 11 to 13 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of an information processing device, a storage, a controller, a terminal device, sensor, and/or camera. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the claimed invention to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. In other words, these claims merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). They do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). Therefore, none of the Claims 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO).
Accordingly, Claims 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
AIA Notice
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 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.
AIA Notice – Prior Art
As presented, the combination of all the elements of the independent claims do not appear in a single reference of prior art. Additionally, based on the art of record, it does not appear that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine various pieces of the cited prior art to obtain each and every limitation as currently required by the independent claims. Upon conducting an updated search, the closest prior art appears to be U.S. Patent 9,539,498 to Hanke et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0346683 a1 to Worrall et al. Hanke generally discloses methods and systems for mapping real world actions to a virtual world associated with a parallel reality game are provided. The virtual world has experiences that relate to real world actions. The method includes accessing a data source associated with one or more real world actions; and modifying game data associated with the parallel reality game to generate experiences in the virtual world based at least in part on the data associated with the one or more real world actions. Generating experiences in the virtual world based on data associated with real world actions improves the link between the parallel virtual world and the real world, enhancing illusion that the virtual world is another dimension of the real world that the player can interact with through the parallel reality game.
However, Hanke and/or Worrall in combination or taken alone, fails to disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest ….. “determines whether the event occurrence area is in a crowded state based on the participation status information, after determining that the event occurrence area is in the crowded state, restricts participation to the event occurrence area in the virtual game space, and after determining that the event occurrence area is in the crowded state, sets up another event occurrence area in the virtual game space”. As such, for at least these reasons, Examiner have found these limitations in combination with the other limitations of the claim are neither anticipated by nor obvious over the closest prior art.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s addresses the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on pages 2 to 3. Applicant, addresses Step 2A Prong 2 of the claims by reciting “Practical application may be shown by “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement or other technology or technical field.” However, Applicant has not provided any arguments as to how this applies to the new amendments provided in the claims. There is no indication here that the claims require a computer operating in a manner that is not normal or expected. As such, there is no indication that the claimed invention solves a problem unique to the Internet, or shows any improvement in the functioning of a computer or technological field, as was the case in DDR Holdings. Therefore, Applicant has not persuasively demonstrated that the claimed invention is eligible for patenting.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights