DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks and Amendments filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, and 19-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Pages 8-9: “As discussed during the interview, the independent claims are amended to recite (in their respective terms) that "the user information memory stores the user information only for users of the plurality of users having a first type of attribute." As explicitly provided in ¶[0116] of the publication, "[t]he activity information... preferably may be collected and managed only for users with special attributes. In this case, there is no need to collect/manage activity information for users with normal attributes, so the processing load on the server device 10 can be efficiently reduced." As noted during the interview, reducing the processing load for a computer has been held to be a patent-eligible solution under §101 (see Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-3 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In Amdocs, the Federal Circuit held that the claimed system achieved "an improvement in computer functionality" by enabling "load distribution" for the network in a way that improved over previous "massive record flows" causing network bottlenecks. Id.” and “As discussed above, the independent claims of the present application likewise achieve "an improvement in computer functionality" by enabling "load distribution" (by reducing the amount of information retrieved and stored) in a way that improves the processor's functioning by reducing the processing load.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because after consideration, the additional elements in the claimed invention are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer as opposed to an improvement in computer functionality. Additionally, Amdocs’ specification discuss detail to how its claimed invention improves computer functionality, including but not limited to placing things closer to source, and in the instant application, Paragraph [0116] of the publication is the only discussion on efficient use of memory, and it does not discuss any technical problem. In fact, Paragraph [0116] even suggests that this is merely a design choice where Applicant’s system is perfectly capable of collecting information for everyone. Therefore, unlike Amdocs, the improvement is not an improvement in computer technology, but rather, merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. Also, as noted above, in this case, the specification did not set forth the improvement in a way that is apparent to one or ordinary skill in the art, and therefore it is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05 (a) – “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (an information processing method for promoting activation of various transactions related to a specific virtual reality medium in a virtual space), “a machine” (an information processing system for promoting activation of various transactions related to a specific virtual reality medium in a virtual space), and “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer-readable medium for promoting activation of various transactions related to a specific virtual reality medium in a virtual space) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-20, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
An information processing system comprising:
… configured to change an association state of … from a state of being associated with a first user to a state of being associated with a second user;
… configured to store a change history of the association state related to …;
… configured to store user information related to a plurality of users including the first and second users; and
… configured to generate or update predetermined information related to …, based on the user information related to a plurality of target users including (i) a past user associated with the specific virtual reality medium in the association state included in the change history and (ii) the second user associated with the specific virtual reality medium, wherein
...
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of changing, storing, and generating or updating predetermined information are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “a first state change processor”, “a specific virtual reality medium usable in a virtual space”, “a history memory”, “the specific virtual reality medium”, “a user information memory”, “an association processor”, and “the user information memory stores the user information only for users of the plurality of users having a first type of attribute”. The additional elements “a specific virtual reality medium usable in a virtual space” and “the specific virtual reality medium” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of changing, storing, and generating or updating predetermined information by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform the abstract idea amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-18 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the predetermined information includes at least one of item value information indicating an item value of the specific virtual reality medium and item attribute information indicating an item attribute of the specific virtual reality medium” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein the user information includes at least one of a current value and a past value of a predetermined parameter related to each user, and … generates or updates the predetermined information based on a value including at least one of the current value and the past value of the predetermined parameter related to each target user” in Claim 3, by defining “wherein … generates or updates the predetermined information based on whether a predetermined condition is satisfied with respect to each target user based on the value including at least one of the current value and the past value of the predetermined parameter related to each target user” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein … generates or updates the predetermined information such that the item value or the item attribute of the specific virtual reality medium is different depending on whether or not each target user satisfies the predetermined condition” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein … generates or updates the predetermined information based on the value including at least one of the current value and the past value of the predetermined parameter related to the at least one target user who satisfies the predetermined condition” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein when the predetermined condition is satisfied, … generates or updates the predetermined information (i) based on a number of changes in the association state or a period of time from a most recent association state in which each target user who satisfies the predetermined condition was associated with … to the current association state, or (ii) based on a total number of changes in the association state related to …” in Claim 7, by defining “wherein … generates or updates the predetermined information in a manner that changes the item value or the item attribute of the specific virtual reality medium according to the number of changes or the period of time” in Claim 8, by defining “wherein … generates or updates the predetermined information (i) based on a duration of the association state in which each target user who satisfies the predetermined condition is now associated or (ii) based on a duration of the association state in which each target user who satisfies the predetermined condition was previously associated” in Claim 9, by defining “wherein … generates or updates the predetermined information in a manner that is more favorable for each target user (i) by associating a new item attribute with … or (ii) by changing the item attribute associated with … to another item attribute” in Claim 10, by defining “wherein the predetermined parameter includes at least one of a current user attribute and a past user attribute related to each user, and the predetermined condition includes a first predetermined condition that is satisfied when the current or past user attribute is or was the predetermined attribute, respectively” in Claim 11, by defining “wherein the predetermined condition includes a second predetermined condition that is satisfied when the value including at least one of the current value and the past value of the predetermined parameter is a predetermined value or within a predetermined range” in Claim 12, by defining “wherein the predetermined parameter includes (i) a parameter related to an award to be given with respect to an activity of each target user in …, and (ii) a parameter related to an evaluation from other users with respect to the activity of each target user in …” in Claim 13, by defining “further comprising … configured to exert a predetermined effect on …, … in a vicinity of …, or an object in the vicinity of …, based on the item attribute information related to …” in Claim 14, by defining “further comprising … configured to change the association state with each user of … having a predetermined value from the state of being associated with the second user to the state of being associated with the first user when the association state related to … is changed by … from the state of being associated with the first user to the state of being associated with the second user” in Claim 15, by defining “wherein the specific virtual reality medium includes at least one of (i) … and (ii) …” in Claim 16, by defining “wherein the change history is stored for … and is output to … of each user” in Claim 17, and by defining “wherein the specific virtual reality medium is issued as …” in Claim 18.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 2-18 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 2 and 11-12 do not recite additional elements. Claims 3-6 and 8-9 recite an additional element – “the association processor”, Claims 7 and 10 recite additional elements – “the association processor” and “the specific virtual reality medium”, Claim 13 recites an additional element – “the virtual space”, Claim 14 recites additional elements – “an effect processor”, “a first avatar related to the specific virtual reality medium”, “a second avatar”, and “the specific virtual reality medium”, Claim 15 recites additional elements – “a second state change processor”, “an electronic medium”, “the specific virtual reality medium”, and “the first state change processor”, Claim 16 recites additional elements – “an item to be attached to an avatar” and “an item to be arranged in the virtual space”, Claim 17 recites additional elements – “each specific virtual reality medium of a plurality of specific virtual reality media” and “a terminal”, and Claim 18 recites an additional element – “a non-fungible token (NFT)”. The additional elements “the specific virtual reality medium”, “the virtual space”, “a first avatar related to the specific virtual reality medium”, “a second avatar”, “a non-fungible token (NFT)”, “an item to be attached to an avatar”, and “an item to be arranged in the virtual space” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).The other additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 2-18 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform the abstract idea amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites the following limitations:
An information processing method that is executed by …, the method comprising:
changing an association state of … from a state of being associated with a first user to a state of being associated with a second user;
storing a change history of the association state related to …;
storing user information related to a plurality of users including the first and second users; and
generating or updating predetermined information related to …, based on the user information related to a plurality of target users including (i) a past user associated with the specific virtual reality medium in the association state included in the change history and (ii) the second user associated with the specific virtual reality medium, wherein
...
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 19 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of changing, storing, and generating or updating predetermined information are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 19 recites additional elements – “a computer”, “a specific virtual reality medium usable in a virtual space”, “the specific virtual reality medium”, and “the user information is stored only for users of the plurality of users having a first type of attribute”. The additional elements “a specific virtual reality medium usable in a virtual space” and “the specific virtual reality medium” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of changing, storing, and generating or updating predetermined information by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform the abstract idea amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites the following limitations:
… to execute:
changing an association state of … from a state of being associated with a first user to a state of being associated with a second user;
storing a change history of the association state related to …;
storing user information related to a plurality of users including the first and second users; and
generating or updating predetermined information related to …, based on the user information related to a plurality of target users including (i) a past user associated with the specific virtual reality medium in the association state included in the change history and (ii) the second user associated with the specific virtual reality medium, wherein
...
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 20 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of changing, storing, and generating or updating predetermined information are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 recites additional elements – “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon a program that causes a computer”, “a specific virtual reality medium usable in a virtual space”, “the specific virtual reality medium”, and “the user information is stored only for users of the plurality of users having a first type of attribute”. The additional elements “a specific virtual reality medium usable in a virtual space” and “the specific virtual reality medium” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of changing, storing, and generating or updating predetermined information by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform the abstract idea amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed an updated search of prior art, including all feature limitations of amended independent claims 1, 19, and 20, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 in their entirety; and in particular, “an association processor configured to generate or update predetermined information related to the specific virtual reality medium, based on the user information related to a plurality of target users including (i) a past user associated with the specific virtual reality medium in the association state included in the change history and (ii) the second user associated with the specific virtual reality medium, wherein the user information memory stores the user information only for users of the plurality of users having a first type of attribute” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claims 19 and 20.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art was found to be Koch in view of UTO. Koch teaches a system and method for providing automatic administration based on ledger-specific populations of unique digital articles and other digital assets that are not fungible in an online gaming platform. UTO teaches a system and method for processing of a game in which a user able to select between a first quest and a second quest different from the first quest. UTO also teaches generating or updating predetermined information related to the specific virtual reality medium, based on the user information related to a plurality of target users including … the second user associated with the specific virtual reality medium. In light of the claim amendments, Examiner updated the search, did not find new prior art for the limitation described above, and found that the next closet prior art is Koch in view of UTO and Tsiounis; Ioannis (US 2013/0310125 A1; hereinafter, “Tsiounis”). Tsiounis teaches a method and system for facilitating an electronic game comprising a game interface having multiple element positions onto which one or more players places a plurality of game elements in a given move, each game element having a respective numeral indicated thereon or being blank. Tsiounis also discloses a user data database that may store data defining one or more users participating in (or who have participated in) one or more games facilitated by the apparatus or who have registered with an entity associated with the apparatus. However, Koch in view of UTO and Tsiounis fails to disclose the limitations described above. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the amended limitations of “an association processor configured to generate or update predetermined information related to the specific virtual reality medium, based on the user information related to a plurality of target users including (i) a past user associated with the specific virtual reality medium in the association state included in the change history and (ii) the second user associated with the specific virtual reality medium, wherein the user information memory stores the user information only for users of the plurality of users having a first type of attribute”.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1, 19, and 20, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claims 1, 19, and 20, claims (2-18) are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
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 TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628